Of Swords and Time
Michael L. Clair
Well I've been reading a lot of the Newsgroup lately but it's been a
while so if there is something "wrong" about this posting (aka the format)
just let me know. Oh yeah, along those lines, if this is answered in the
FAQ sorry (I've read the FAQ)...
Anyway, onward to my question. I've been doing a little bit of work on
an RPG system for the WoT that tries to incorporate the feel of the WoT into
the game and I've hit a little snag. Exactly how long does it take Rand to
become a Blademaster? Here's what information I've got (not alot
actually...)
1. Lan tells Rand while in Fal Dara that it would take him (I believe)
5 years of training to make him a Blademaster (I haven't read the exact
passage, but that is what I remember getting out of it).
2. Rand is called a Blademaster during the fight with Lord Toram (or
something like that), he also holds his own, which means he definitely is a
Blademaster at that point.
3. By the end of tGH he definitely *is not* a Blademaster, judging from
how he barely survived the battle with Lord Turak (sp?).
4. Be'lal beats the sh*t out of Rand in tDR before Rand grabs Callandor
so he definitely isn't a Blademaster at that point.
5. In the prologue to one of the books (3 or 4 I believe) Rand is "used
to" fighting multiple fighters and asking for the best fighters to spar with
him. By this time he seems to be an expert Bladesmen, but definitely not
Master quality...yet.
Okay, at this point you're definitely thinking that my knowledge is very
sketchy. Well, you're right, it's been over 2 years since I re-read the
series (I'm holding out to read the 8th and then re-read the whole series
again :) and I apologize for my lack of knowledge. So, that's the question,
how long did take Rand to achieve Blademaster status. Also, here's a few
more questions for all you gurus...
1. Could Lan defeat Rand (assuming no fatigue, etc) at the current time
(aka the beginning of tPoD)?
2. Exactly how much better is a Blademaster than say Uno? Along that line,
exactly how good is Galad (relatively of course)?
3. Rand seems to have the quickest learning Rate I've ever heard of (seen
by the fact that he is so young for a Blademaster in the 7th book). Why is
this? Possible reasons include Lews Therin instincts embedded in him and
the fact that he has the Flame and the Void.
4. Which leads me to my next question, does every "fighter" know about the
Flame and the Void? Does Lan use it (okay, sorry that's stupid, he offered
to teach it to Rand)? Also, if one uses it how much better does one get
while swordfighting? It seems like Rand almost doubles or triples his
ability when in the Void, so why doesn't everyone use it? Final question,
how long does it take to use this skill (the Flame and the Void)?
Okay, that's it. Sorry for all these stupid questions that have
probably been answered a thousand times. Thanks for all your help.
-Michael
"Cogito, ergo sum"
PS I've been reading a lot about the "RJ sux" etc. Hey, if you don't like
him don't read him. This reminds me of a great quote from "Private
Parts"... "How long does the average fan listen to Stern?" Answer (I'm
making these numbers up, btw): "An hour, most common reason, 'I wanna see
what he does next.'" "How long does the average Stern hater listen?"
Answer: "2 and a half hours. Most common reason, 'I wanna see what he does
next.'"
I don't know, it just seems rather fitting to the whole argument. Oh,
and please excuse my lack of correct grammer/paragraph use.
Patrick J Murray
Michael L. Clair wrote in message <6pgui3$616$1...@news2.i-2000.com>...
>Hello all,
<snip>
>1. Could Lan defeat Rand (assuming no fatigue, etc) at the current >time
(aka the beginning of tPoD)?
Yes. I don't doubt that Lan is the best swordsman alive in Randland. (not
counting Gaidal Cain Reborn)
>2. Exactly how much better is a Blademaster than say Uno? Along >that
line, exactly how good is Galad (relatively of course)?
Uno - I'd say it's the difference between a veteran army officer and a
trained sharpshooter. He's not someone you'd want to go against in
competition, but he's no master.
Galad - Definately a blademaster. Rand vs. Galad would probably be a close
fight.
>3. Rand seems to have the quickest learning Rate I've ever heard of >(seen
by the fact that he is so young for a Blademaster in the 7th >book). Why is
this? Possible reasons include Lews Therin instincts >embedded in him and
the fact that he has the Flame and the Void.
Either Rand's a natural, or RJ didn't want to take most of the series to
train him.
>4. Which leads me to my next question, does every "fighter" know >about
the Flame and the Void? Does Lan use it (okay, sorry that's >stupid, he
offered to teach it to Rand)? Also, if one uses it how much >better does
one get while swordfighting? It seems like Rand almost >doubles or triples
his ability when in the Void, so why doesn't >everyone use it?
Who's to say everyone doesn't? I couldn't say for sure, since ,IIRC, RJ has
never addressed this when describing the thoughts of a trained swordsman
>Final question, how long does it take to use this skill (the Flame and >the
Void)?
I have _no_ idea.
HTH!
PJM
--
"America is like a big melting pot. The people at the bottom get burned,
and the scum float to the top." -- Charlie King
Chris Venit
>
> Hello all,
Hey.
(snip)
> 1. Could Lan defeat Rand (assuming no fatigue, etc) at the current time
> (aka the beginning of tPoD)?
I think that they're about equal, IMO, with Lan being a little better
perhaps, if for nothing else, than by experience.
>Along that line,
> exactly how good is Galad (relatively of course)?
Damn good. Galad was the top student at the Warder school
> 3. Rand seems to have the quickest learning Rate I've ever heard of (seen
> by the fact that he is so young for a Blademaster in the 7th book). Why is
> this? Possible reasons include Lews Therin instincts embedded in him and
> the fact that he has the Flame and the Void.
What's the question? Yeah, he was a bit too quick learning for my
tastes. 3-4 months seems a little too short of time with a sword to beat
a blademaster
> 4. Which leads me to my next question, does every "fighter" know about the
> Flame and the Void?
What's the difference between feeling a sword in your hands, and being
ONE with the sword, the ground, your opponent, etc...
>It seems like Rand almost doubles or triples his
> ability when in the Void, so why doesn't everyone use it?
The answer is that not everyone CAN use it. Perrin can't, I know for
sure, and I think that Abell Cauthorn can, but Mat can't.
--
Chris Venit
"When Life gives you lemons, JUST SHUT UP AND EAT YOUR DAMN LEMON!"
Matthew Walker
> Void)?
>
> I have _no_ idea.
I'd have to say it takes a _real_ long time - I've been trying for
over two years and the Flame still doesn't stick around for very
long.
--
Matthew Walker
"There has not been any great talent without an element of madness."
- Seneca
Patrick J Murray
Matthew Walker wrote in message <35BC0C9C...@unreal.org>...
>Patrick J Murray wrote:
>>
>> Michael L. Clair wrote in message <6pgui3$616$1...@news2.i-2000.com>...
>> >Final question, how long does it take to use this skill (the Flame and
>the
>> Void)?
>>
>> I have _no_ idea.
>
>I'd have to say it takes a _real_ long time - I've been trying for
>over two years and the Flame still doesn't stick around for very
>long.
People have been telling me for a long time that I've got the Void down
cold.
Robert Oliver
> 2. Rand is called a Blademaster during the fight with Lord Toram (or
> something like that), he also holds his own, which means he definitely is a
> Blademaster at that point.
He only "held his own" after embracing the Void. Before that and High
Lord Turak was rather disappointed in him. Turak obviously had no idea
that Rand was just a simple shepard. Really, he's JUST a shepard damnit!
:)
> again :) and I apologize for my lack of knowledge. So, that's the question,
> how long did take Rand to achieve Blademaster status. Also, here's a few
> more questions for all you gurus...
However long it took, what Lan said has no real bearing on the issue as
Lan could not predict the opponents and situations that Rand would
encounter in the future.
> 1. Could Lan defeat Rand (assuming no fatigue, etc) at the current time
> (aka the beginning of tPoD)?
Probably.
> 2. Exactly how much better is a Blademaster than say Uno? Along that line,
> exactly how good is Galad (relatively of course)?
Who knows. No way to say.
> 3. Rand seems to have the quickest learning Rate I've ever heard of (seen
> by the fact that he is so young for a Blademaster in the 7th book). Why is
> this? Possible reasons include Lews Therin instincts embedded in him and
> the fact that he has the Flame and the Void.
Do you really need an answer for this? :)
--
Steeltown: A Big Country web site
http://www.mint.net/~roliver/bc-mint.htm
A Guide to the Star Trek Universe
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6053/
The Unofficial Wheel of Time Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3513/wot.htm
cscs
Robert Oliver wrote in message <35BC5257...@mint.net>...
shepard...........shepard
PSST.
<whispering> Oi. robbie, it's "shepherd".
Green X
>1. Could Lan defeat Rand (assuming no fatigue, etc) at the current time
>(aka the beginning of tPoD)?
Hell no! Rand could just use his ribbo-Oh!? You mean in a sword fight?
Probably.
>2. Exactly how much better is a Blademaster than say Uno? Along that line,
>exactly how good is Galad (relatively of course)?
Galad is pretty good. The only time we've seen him fight is against
Mat WITH Gawyn. He lost to Mat and Mat was extremely weak. Galad is a
blademaster, and Gawyn is probably on par with Uno. So the real question is,
HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
Green X
Michael L. Clair
First of all, thanx for everyone's responses...
Green X wrote in message
<199807272209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Galad is pretty good. The only time we've seen him fight is
against
>Mat WITH Gawyn. He lost to Mat and Mat was extremely weak. Galad is a
>blademaster, and Gawyn is probably on par with Uno. So the real question
is,
>HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
RJ seems to have a strange obsession with staves being used with great
effect against blades. Also, it seems to me that a Staff is better used
against more than one swordsmen because of its length and general usage.
Personally I remember thinking how much bullsh*t there was in a scene where
Galad (arguably Blademaster level) and Gawyn are beat by a very weakened
Mat, but it is arguable that he had holes in his memory at that time and
out-thought the two men.
Hope to hear from everyone :)
-Michael
"Cogito, ergo sum"
Dave Rothgery
Michael L. Clair <airc...@i-2000.com> wrote:
>
> RJ seems to have a strange obsession with staves being used with great
>effect against blades. Also, it seems to me that a Staff is better used
>against more than one swordsmen because of its length and general usage.
>Personally I remember thinking how much bullsh*t there was in a scene where
>Galad (arguably Blademaster level) and Gawyn are beat by a very weakened
>Mat, but it is arguable that he had holes in his memory at that time and
>out-thought the two men.
Oh Mat won largely because Gawyn vastly underestimated him, allowing him
to be KO'd easily. Galad didn't want to hurt Mat, because he thought
Egwene might be upset with him over it. And in fight between two skilled,
unarmored opponents, a staff's longer reach helps. Being ta'veren doesn't
hurt, either.
--
Dave Rothgery WPI CS '98
dave...@wpi.edu http://www.wpi.edu/~daveroth/
Sandy
>Hello all,
>
> First of all, thanx for everyone's responses...
>
>Green X wrote in message
><199807272209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> Galad is pretty good. The only time we've seen him fight is
>against
>>Mat WITH Gawyn. He lost to Mat and Mat was extremely weak. Galad is a
>>blademaster, and Gawyn is probably on par with Uno. So the real question
>is,
>>HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
>
>
>effect against blades. Also, it seems to me that a Staff is better used
>against more than one swordsmen because of its length and general usage.
>Personally I remember thinking how much bullsh*t there was in a scene where
>Galad (arguably Blademaster level) and Gawyn are beat by a very weakened
>Mat, but it is arguable that he had holes in his memory at that time and
>out-thought the two men.
You must understand, Mat was just recovering from his Healing, and looked
considerably more sick than he was. Gawyn and Galad were obviously not
going for the kill when they saw how weak and defenseless Mat looked. Mat,
however, in his somewhat crazed state, was. He almost killed Galad, and he
gave Gawyn a lump. Galad probably wasn't even trying very hard until maybe
the way end, but by then we had Mat, who was fighting to kill, win. This
experience should not be used ot weigh the mastery of either Gawyn or Galad,
or even Mat.
--
Sandy-- http://www.jps.net/rnros/
"Why do I read the WoT series? Because I'm not ready to die."
-Steven Odhner in raswr-j
Michael L. Clair
Sandy wrote in message <35bd1...@blushng.jps.net>...
>You must understand, Mat was just recovering from his Healing, and looked
>considerably more sick than he was. Gawyn and Galad were obviously not
>going for the kill when they saw how weak and defenseless Mat looked. Mat,
>however, in his somewhat crazed state, was. He almost killed Galad, and he
>gave Gawyn a lump. Galad probably wasn't even trying very hard until maybe
>the way end, but by then we had Mat, who was fighting to kill, win. This
>experience should not be used ot weigh the mastery of either Gawyn or
Galad,
>or even Mat.
Alright, I definitely agree with that, and rescind my earlier opinion of
the whole battle. The question is now rather obvious, if that farmer legend
about beating the best swordsmen is true, why is a Staff fighter so much
better than an armed Swordsman? I'm trying to figure out how effective I
should make Staff fighting in my game and so far I'm seeing it as rather
effective against most enemies except if they have a sword, in which case it
seems to get really good, really fast.
Alright, forgive me for my ignorance but didn't Mat fight a certain Aiel
and kill him? He was using his spear thing at the time but wasn't that a
tough battle for him? I personally don't remember and don't have access to
that book. I'm just curious because that is one of the battles that I
remember Mat being in in the last couple of books. This is really just an
exercise in gauging his chances in a fight with the other "super powers" of
Randland.
Thanks again for everyone's help, even that outspoken "I can't find my Caps
Lock button" guy.
-Michael
"Cogito, ergo sum"
>Sandy
Murray Lee
>>Final question, how long does it take to use this skill (the Flame and
>the
>Void)?
>
>
>I have _no_ idea.
At the start, Rand had problems holding onto it, and it flickered, yet
Selene spoke of people who use this ability their entire lives. So I guess
you get better at it until it requires absolutely no effort or time to use.
BTW, I'm only reading The Great Hunt at the moment, so I don't know if some
other stuff is said later.
Markus Rasch
Green X <gre...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807272209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Michael L. Clair wrote:
>
> > 1. Could Lan defeat Rand (assuming no fatigue, etc) at the current
> > time (aka the beginning of tPoD)?
>
> Hell no! Rand could just use his ribbo-Oh!? You mean in a sword fight?
> Probably.
Rand didn't defeat Toram Riatin in aCoS, so why do you believe,
that he could match Lan?
Aside from Sammael, I can't see anybody skilled enough to best Lan,
at the moment. Galad and Rand may be able to do so in the future,
assumed, they have one.
> > 2. Exactly how much better is a Blademaster than say Uno?
> > Along that line, exactly how good is Galad (relatively of course)?
>
> Galad is pretty good. The only time we've seen him fight is against
> Mat WITH Gawyn.
Galad fought in the riots in Somara, where the Shienarans were
awed by his blademastery. We also know, that he mastered his
instructors in the Tower, as early as tSR, because Gawyn said that
Galad defeated Hammar three times out of five.
<tSR; ?, Seeds of Shadow, 21>
> He lost to Mat and Mat was extremely weak. Galad is a blademaster,
> and Gawyn is probably on par with Uno.
Yes, Galad is a Blademaster.
But, I really don't believe, that Uno is in Gawyns class.
Gawyn, won two times out of five against Hammar, a Blademaster.
<tSR; ?, Seeds of Shadow, 2>
Later, in tSR, he killed Hammar and Coulin, supposedly also a
Blademaster. <tSR; ?, Thr Truth of a Viewing, 542>
In aCOS, he was able to defeat three Aiel at once.
<aCoS, Prologue>
Therefore, I believe, that he is a Blademaster, too.
Uno, OTOH, is an experienced soldier, and probably a good
sword-fighter, but he wouldn't have a significant chance against Gawyn,
or any other fighter with the skill of a blademaster, IMHO.
The difference, between a good swords-man and a Blademaster, seems
to be very significant, because Rand for instance is able to kill five very
good sword-fighters. This strikes me as a little unrealistic, but I am no
expert on this matter.
> So the real question is, HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could
> hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
I believe, that you overestimate Mat's skill.
Aside from his victory in tDR, against Gawyn and Galad, there are
no further evidences, that he could match a real Blademaster,
without his luck.
And, you should keep in mind, that neither Gawyn nor Galad were
nearly as good, as they are now.
Mat's observation in <tDR; ?, Scouting and Discoveries, 226>
proves this:
" The tall man [Galad] handled his practice sword _almost_ as
deftly as the Warders, ..." [ insert and emphasis mine]
Furthermore, I also don't believe, that he would have been able to
defeat them, if they had taken him serious, from the beginning.
He had other encounters, which prove, IMO, that he is but a very
good fighter, who could defeat anybody short of a Blademaster,
but lacks the skill of one.
In the Stone of Tear, for instance, he is very hard pressed to defeat
Darlin Sisnera, probably a good swordsman, but no Blademaster.
<tDR; ?, Into the Stone, 552>
Rand, OTOH, is able to defeat five man, with supposedly the skill
of Sisnera. < Loc; Lion on the Hill>
In the Aiel Waste, Mat is about to be killed by a Myrddraal, when
somebody saves him.<tSR; ?, Imre Stand, 426>
There are still other instances, where Mat is about to loose his life,
but for his luck and not his skill.
MR
Merusk
>
> Hello all,
>
> First of all, thanx for everyone's responses...
>
> Green X wrote in message
> <199807272209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> against
> >blademaster, and Gawyn is probably on par with Uno. So the real question
> is,
> >HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
>
be based purely on his ta'veren-ness.
> RJ seems to have a strange obsession with staves being used with great
> effect against blades. Also, it seems to me that a Staff is better used
> against more than one swordsmen because of its length and general usage.
> Personally I remember thinking how much bullsh*t there was in a scene where
> Galad (arguably Blademaster level) and Gawyn are beat by a very weakened
> Mat, but it is arguable that he had holes in his memory at that time and
> out-thought the two men.
>
Look at how you use the two different weapons. A sword of RJ's type is
a slashing weapon (they all seem to be modeled after the oriental Katana
rather
than the "traditional" fantasy style of the european longsword) With a
little bit
of thrusting. Quarterstaves excell at parrying and have a much longer
reach than
a sword, so you have a bit of an advantage against an opponent with a
sword.
Also, you've seem to have left a few other things out of your
assessment
of the fight. 1) Galad and Gawyn were overconfidant, and that's why Mat
took Gawyn
out so quick in the beginning of the fight. 2) Mat *IS* ta'veren, and
his mojo is
for altering the swingings of chance, so it's possible that this had
something to
do with it. (giving a reason for his muttering about luck. [TDR
paperback p. 285])
3) Recall "the greatest swordsman who ever lived," Jearom got his BM
behind whupped
by a farmer with a staff. [same book, next page]
Merusk
--
If I become and evil overlord, and an advisor says to me,
``My liege, he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?''
I will reply ``This.'' and kill the advisor.
Andreas Larsson VK/EHS/X/VST
> Michael L. Clair wrote: Read his post I don't want to take up all you hard
> disk...
A person skilled with a quarterstaff will beat most swordfighters, one way is to
break the blade with a blow from the side of it, witch makes your opponent stand
unarmed. Also the staff's superior length and thereby it's effective range makes
it better...
just my 2cs
//CreatoR
Markus Rasch
<Unbeka wrote in article <6pj3jo$ge...@scotty.tinet.ie>...
> MAT HAS THE MEMORY OF AT LEAST 7 BLADE MASTERS AND
> WAR LEADERS IN HIS MIND AND COULD EASILY BEAT TWO BLADE
> MASTERS WHO WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE LIFETIMES EXPERIENCE
Why do you write in upper case letters?
Perhaps, you don't know, that upper case is considered as shouting.
As for your statement:
1. A general or war-leader isn't automatically a Blademaster.
2. Mat doesn't use a sword, so any sword-fighting experiences might be
contraproductive.
3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
4. I don't believe, that a fighter could win against two Blademasters.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
MR
Philip Alan Thomann
In article <01bdba28$3b178fe0$LocalHost@Markus>, "Markus Rasch"
<mark...@metronet.de.SPAMSHIELD> writes:
|>
|> 1. A general or war-leader isn't automatically a Blademaster.
|>
|> 2. Mat doesn't use a sword, so any sword-fighting experiences might be
|> contraproductive.
|>
|> 3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
|> important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
|> Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
|> to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
|> to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
|> We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
|> he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
|>
|> 4. I don't believe, that a fighter could win against two Blademasters.
|> Of course, that is just my opinion.
I think the question was just how good Mat is.
a. The ashendaeri is frequently described as "familiar"
b. Mat took out a Myrdraal (FOH)
c. Mat took out Couladin (FOH)
d. Mat took out Darlin (not that impressive, but nobtable)
e. Mat took out Melindra while barely concious
f. Mat snagged a gholam thrown dagger out of the air without even
thinking about it. (fast guy)
g. In Ebou Dar he weathered HOW many assasination attempts?
h. In LOC, he lasted HOW long against HOW many Aiel before help arrived?
This guy's pretty damned good!
But on a side note, in ACOS (prolouge?) things weren't going to well for
Gawyn against that really good Shaido (not the two others) until a horse
backed into the guy.
About all Galad has shown he can do is dice up irregulars.
Oh yeah, and lastly "'Tis better to be lucky than good" (I forgot where)
Patrick J Murray
Murray Lee wrote in message <6pk1td$i7a$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
<snip>
>BTW, I'm only reading The Great Hunt at the moment, so I don't know if some
>other stuff is said later.
STOP!!!
STEP AWAY FROM THE NEWSGROUP.
DO NOT LOOK BACK.
If you have not read the entire series through _A Crown of Swords_, you are
in for some serious spoilers, should you continue to read the NG. Please
turn off your computer, and read the rest. You'll appreciate it.
Markus Rasch
Philip Alan Thomann <tho...@barh111.rcs.rpi.edu> wrote in article
<6pl6lq$m...@barh111.rcs.rpi.edu>...
>
> In article <01bdba28$3b178fe0$LocalHost@Markus>, "Markus Rasch"
> <mark...@metronet.de.SPAMSHIELD> writes:
>
> |> 1. A general or war-leader isn't automatically a Blademaster.
> |>
> |> 2. Mat doesn't use a sword, so any sword-fighting experiences might be
> |> contraproductive.
> |>
> |> 3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
> |> important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
> |> Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
> |> to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
> |> to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
> |> We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
> |> he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
> |>
> |> 4. I don't believe, that a fighter could win against two Blademasters.
> |> Of course, that is just my opinion.
>
> I think the question was just how good Mat is.
Well, I responded only to "Unbeka", who claimed that Mat could take
out at least two Blademasters, because he has the experiences of
_at least_ seven Blademasters.
> a. The ashendaeri is frequently described as "familiar"
Well, so he has some memories of ashanderi-fighters or he is only
used to staff-fighting, like Abell.
> b. Mat took out a Myrdraal (FOH)
Even several, but was also nearly killed.
> c. Mat took out Couladin (FOH)
and was nearly killed.
> d. Mat took out Darlin (not that impressive, but nobtable)
and was hard pressed.
> e. Mat took out Melindra while barely concious
With a dagger, and _very_much luck.
> f. Mat snagged a gholam thrown dagger out of the air without even
> thinking about it. (fast guy)
Well, again a dagger, and yes, he has quick hands.
> g. In Ebou Dar he weathered HOW many assasination attempts?
Some.
> h. In LOC, he lasted HOW long against HOW many Aiel before help arrived?
Yeah, that was really good, but he was only defending and was wounded.
> This guy's pretty damned good!
Yes, and I didn't argued that. In another post in this thread I said, that
Mat could best anybody, except a Blademaster.
All of your points qualify Mat as a very good fighter, and probably the best
one with a dagger, but do you believe, that he could defeat, say Lan _and_
Rand? That was the point of "Unbeka".
> But on a side note, in ACOS (prolouge?) things weren't going to well for
> Gawyn against that really good Shaido (not the two others) until a horse
> backed into the guy.
Yes, he had some problems after he killed the first three at once.
I would say, they were evenly matched in that scene, so not only Mat
is lucky.
It shouldn't be a big surprise, that there are a couple of people with
the skill-level of a Blademaster, in a population of more than a million
trained fighters. And some of them may even be Shaido.
Gawyn was able to take out Hammar and Coulin, in the Tower Coup.
That qualifies him, in my eyes, as a Blademaster.
> About all Galad has shown he can do is dice up irregulars.
Yes, we haven't seen a lot of actions from Galad, since Somara.
But, in tSR he was good enough to miss his lessons with Hammar,
a Blademaster, because he couldn't learn any more from him.
Galad is definetly one of the top ten figters in Randland, IMHO.
> Oh yeah, and lastly "'Tis better to be lucky than good" (I forgot where)
Yes, till your luck wears out, and then you are dead.
MR
Rich Boye'
>
> >Alright, I definitely agree with that, and rescind my earlier opinion of
> >the whole battle. The question is now rather obvious, if that farmer
> legend
> Overall I would say if you two people, one with a staff and one with a
> sword, and they are both equally skilled with thier respective weapons, the
> guy with the staff should win. See my post on this thread titled 'Re: Of
(snippage again}
"Thoth," you edited out the attributions. Attributions are the little
sentences that most newsreaders automatically provide for you that lets
you know who wrote what. You should _never_ edit out the attributions.
Each post should be an easily digestable nugget of information where you
can clearly discern who said what, and in reply to whom.
If you're planning in staying in rasfwrj, and haven't already, I'd
recommend you peruse the rasfwrj FAQ.
o The rasfwrj group FAQ maintained by John Novak can be found at either
(recombine URLs):
http://www.landfield.com/faqs/by-newsgroup/rec/
rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan.html
or
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/sf/robert-jordan-faq
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
* http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/ UIN:9021244
* tPoD "The Path of Plots" Contest - http://tpod.angband.org
"Let's put the 'fun' back in 'dysfunctional'!"
Spiffy McToad
> >
> > First of all, thanx for everyone's responses...
> >
> >Green X wrote in message
> ><199807272209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> the way end, but by then we had Mat, who was fighting to kill, win. This
> experience should not be used ot weigh the mastery of either Gawyn or Galad,
> or even Mat.
As another point to weight Galad in paticular. In one book (which one
escapes me, I think it's FoH) Galad is helping Nyn and El get to a dock
where they'll head to Salidar during a riot. Brigitte, Thom, Juilin,
and 15 or so Shiernans merely hold back the angry mob of people. At the
end of the fight we see Galad probably 15-25 feet (it's described in
paces, it could be farther or shorter) away from Nyn and crew surrounded
by corpses and uninjured (everyone else had minor cuts and bruises).
The only thing that takes away from this is that this crowd was taken by
madness, and they were fighting with pitchforks, stolen swords (that
they might not have known how to use), etc.
Matthew Walker
>
> Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
> <6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
> > Was it not Sammael and LLT that reinvented and then mastered
> > sword fighting in the AoL?
>
> Yes, and Be'lal. They all were Blademasters, and Sammael was
> something like a world-champion at swordsmanship.
Could you please cite? I really don't remember anything like that,
but I'm likely forgetting some key passage.
Donald S Crankshaw
>
> > So the real question is, HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could
> > hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
>
>
I think you're underestimating it: see below.
> Aside from his victory in tDR, against Gawyn and Galad, there are
> no further evidences, that he could match a real Blademaster,
> without his luck.
>
> And, you should keep in mind, that neither Gawyn nor Galad were
> nearly as good, as they are now.
And Mat hasn't improved? I'd say he's probably improved more than
either of them. See below.
>
> Mat's observation in <tDR; ?, Scouting and Discoveries, 226>
> proves this:
>
> " The tall man [Galad] handled his practice sword _almost_ as
> deftly as the Warders, ..." [ insert and emphasis mine]
>
> Furthermore, I also don't believe, that he would have been able to
> defeat them, if they had taken him serious, from the beginning.
By the time Galad had recovered his sword, he was taking Mat seriously.
I'll give you that Mat took Gawyn before Gawyn considered him a threat,
but Galad had time to prepare himself before facing Mat again.
Which brings up the question of where Mat learned he could take a man
with a sword with his quarterstaff. He certainly has never practiced
against a man with a sword before: or has he? Going back to the Great
Hunt, we know from Moiraine that Lan has been working with all three of
the ta'veren. Rand more than the others because he was using a sword.
I'm assuming that Lan trained Perrin on how to use his axe, but what
about Mat? It may explain why Mat was so confident he could take those
two.
>
> He had other encounters, which prove, IMO, that he is but a very
> good fighter, who could defeat anybody short of a Blademaster,
> but lacks the skill of one.
Like when he was able to defend against twelve Aiel for about a minute
who were all very intent on killing him. That, if nothing else,
convinces me of Mat's skill.
>
> In the Stone of Tear, for instance, he is very hard pressed to defeat
> Darlin Sisnera, probably a good swordsman, but no Blademaster.
> <tDR; ?, Into the Stone, 552>
>
> Rand, OTOH, is able to defeat five man, with supposedly the skill
> of Sisnera. < Loc; Lion on the Hill>
There's a difference of about three books between these encounters.
Both Rand and Mat have improved greatly in that time: Mat more than
Rand, really. He got those memories and a new weapon in that time.
>
> In the Aiel Waste, Mat is about to be killed by a Myrddraal, when
> somebody saves him.<tSR; ?, Imre Stand, 426>
>
There's a difference between losing a duel and losing your life in the
midst of a chaotic battle. Mat was nearly killed by the Myrdraal
because the darn thing wouldn't die after he stuck his spear through it.
He was better able to disable the Myrdraal in the next battle before he
got around to killing it.
After all, Rand, channeling or not, nearly lost his life to a Trolloc in
the Stone because some Trolloc he killed fell on him and trapped his
sword arm.
>
> There are still other instances, where Mat is about to loose his life,
> but for his luck and not his skill.
>
Sure, plenty of those. But it's not only him. Gawyn won his battle
with the three Aiel because some horse backed into the last and best of
them. Rand didn't really win that famed fight against five men everyone
likes to point out, he got cracked on the head by the last of them even
as he went for the kill.
Still, if we were to set Mat against Rand in a duel, I'd bet on Mat.
Sincerely,
Donald S. Crankshaw
Thoth
>at the moment. Galad and Rand may be able to do so in the future,
>assumed, they have one.
Was it not Sammael and LLT that reinvented and then mastered sword fighting
in the AoL? Therefore as LLT is in Rands head Rand should be pretty good.
The question is therefore is Rand as good as LLT, if so I would say he could
beat Lan.
Thoth
- The counter of the stars, the measurer of the earth.
Thoth
including projectile weapons) is a combination of two key areas. General
fighting ability which is a combination of many things, including balance,
control, focus, positional awareness and luck. The second area is skill
with individual weapons. The second of these areas would be taught through
something called forms (English), cata (Japanese), hyung (Korean) and many
other things, I don't remember what they are called in WoT but it refers to
things like 'Cat crosses the courtyard'. These teach specific techniques
with the weapon as well as balance and focus. They would be repeated over
and over until the student could perform the technique without thinking.
The first area I refered to, which I have termed general fighting ability,
is gained through actually fighting someone, whether in spar or in a life or
death struggle. In theory if you are proficient in the first area I
described, usually through practise with one particular weapon, then you are
already 75% of the way to learning any other weapon. A good analogy is
music. Part of it is learning to play a specific instument and part is the
ability to read and comprehend music. If you have the latter ability
learning another instrument is much easier.
Now to relative merits of swords and staves. A sword is an edged weapon
meaning relatively little force is needed to cause injury, compared to a
staff which needs to be swung with more power. The use of armor reverses
this bonus, because a sword will do less damage for equal force, unless the
sword wielder can find gaps in the armour. A staff has much longer reach
than a sword. This is an advantage given plenty of room, however it is a
disadvantage in a confined space, because a sword would need less room to
manuvure. A staff is effectively two weapons in one, what I mean is there
are two end than can be used to strike, however because they are still one
staff I would describe it as one and a half weapons. As an example you
could block with one end then immediately counter strike with the other, but
possible counter strikes would be limited because both ends of the staff are
attached to one another, with two shorter staves say, your possible counters
would be greater. Following this logic if you mastered the sword to a high
level you could use two sword together but obviously you couldn't use to
staves. Finally it is possible to use a sword from horseback where as a
staff in this situation is seriously limited.
One final point. It is, in some situations, easier, or at least no harder,
to fight two people than it is one. The idea is that if the two people
aren't used to fighting two on to one they will in fact impede eachother.
As the one you try to move so that one is always in the wayu of the other.
Now to the points you made;
>1. A general or war-leader isn't automatically a Blademaster.
This is true, however any experience gained in a battle situation can help,
see what I say about general fighting skill above. Also a war-leader or
general is quite likely to be a veteran.
>2. Mat doesn't use a sword, so any sword-fighting experiences might be
>contraproductive.
I disagree, it's all experience, again see above.
>3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
>important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
>Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
>to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
>to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
>We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
>he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
Experience is very important, how else can you antisipate what is coming
next. It is also how you improve balance and control. Don't forget as well
that optimum speed and strength CANNOT be obtained without feeling
completely at ease and as one with a weapon, and guess what, this comes with
experience.
>4. I don't believe, that a fighter could win against two Blademasters.
>Of course, that is just my opinion.
This I do agree with, assuming the person using the staff is not a
'Staffmaster', I don't know what else you would call it.
Thoth
>the whole battle. The question is now rather obvious, if that farmer
legend
>better than an armed Swordsman? I'm trying to figure out how effective I
>should make Staff fighting in my game and so far I'm seeing it as rather
>effective against most enemies except if they have a sword, in which case
it
>seems to get really good, really fast.
Overall I would say if you two people, one with a staff and one with a
sword, and they are both equally skilled with thier respective weapons, the
guy with the staff should win. See my post on this thread titled 'Re: Of
Swords and Staves (Relative Merits)'.
>Alright, forgive me for my ignorance but didn't Mat fight a certain Aiel
>and kill him? He was using his spear thing at the time but wasn't that a
>tough battle for him? I personally don't remember and don't have access to
>that book. I'm just curious because that is one of the battles that I
>remember Mat being in in the last couple of books. This is really just an
>exercise in gauging his chances in a fight with the other "super powers" of
>Randland.
I don't remember the specifics but the Aiel are dedicated so battles with
them are always tough. It a bit like the assassination theory that says if
an assassin is willing to give up everything to make the kill there is know
way to stop him (I'm paraphrasing here). Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
of whatever was on the end!
Patrick J Murray
Thoth wrote in message <6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
>>Aside from Sammael, I can't see anybody skilled enough to best Lan,
>>at the moment. Galad and Rand may be able to do so in the future,
>>assumed, they have one.
>
>
>Was it not Sammael and LLT that reinvented and then mastered sword fighting
>in the AoL?
mmm...actually it was Be'lal. (see TDR)
HTH!
Markus Rasch
Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
<6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
> >Aside from Sammael, I can't see anybody skilled enough to best Lan,
> >at the moment. Galad and Rand may be able to do so in the future,
> >assumed, they have one.
>
> Was it not Sammael and LLT that reinvented and then mastered
> sword fighting in the AoL?
Yes, and Be'lal. They all were Blademasters, and Sammael was
something like a world-champion at swordsmanship.
> Therefore as LLT is in Rands head Rand should be pretty good.
> The question is therefore is Rand as good as LLT, if so I would
> say he could beat Lan.
Yes, I agree, that if Rand could fully use the _abilities_ of LTT, he
_could_ be able to best Lan (keep in mind, that we don't know how
skillful LTT or Sammael are in comparison to modern Blademasters).
But, I find it questionable if a mainly physical ability like swordsmanship,
can be transferred as easily, as mere memories or knowledge about the
One Power. Perhaps you will note, that there weren't any memory
transfers about sword-fighting, which would have increased Rand's abilities
with a blade, at least, I am not aware of any.
And, furthermore I think, that if he could use LTT abilities in some way,
he should have been able to defeat Toram Riatin in aCoS.
MR
Markus Rasch
<Unbeka wrote in article <6pj3jo$ge...@scotty.tinet.ie>...
<MAT HAS THE MEMORY OF AT LEAST 7 BLADE MASTERS AND
<WAR LEADERS IN HIS MIND AND COULD EASILY BEAT TWO BLADE
<MASTERS WHO WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE LIFETIMES EXPERIENCE
Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
<6plmiv$or5$2...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
[snip general explanation of fighting abilities]
[snip comparison between staff and sword]
Your explanations seem mostly reasonable to me, except the part
about experiences (see down).
> One final point. It is, in some situations, easier, or at least no harder,
> to fight two people than it is one. The idea is that if the two people
> aren't used to fighting two on to one they will in fact impede eachother.
> As the one you try to move so that one is always in the wayu of the other.
Yes, that is a very valuable point, but I could imagine, that two very highly
trained swordsmen, for instance Blademasters, could be able to anticipate
the movements of the other
> Now to the points you made;
>
> >1. A general or war-leader isn't automatically a Blademaster.
>
>
> This is true, however any experience gained in a battle situation can help,
> see what I say about general fighting skill above. Also a war-leader or
> general is quite likely to be a veteran.
You are, of course, correct. I wouldn't argue that.
I was merely pointing out, that a general isn't _automatically_ a
Blademaster, because "Unbeka", the person I responded to,
seemed to claim that.
> >2. Mat doesn't use a sword, so any sword-fighting experiences might be
> >contraproductive.
>
> I disagree, it's all experience, again see above.
I suppose, that any kind of fighting experience _can_ be useful.
But, if a fighter is used to a specific weapon, a specific set of movements,
a specific balance, if he suspects his enemy in a specific range,
than it could be a disadvantage, if he is forced to use an other weapon.
I assume, that this is especially a problem for highly trained fighters, whose
movements and reflexes are automatic.
So I think, that my point may have some value, because if Mat's memories
consist mostly of sword-fighting experiences, and we assume, that
they are useful in some way, they may also be contraproductive in
another way. And if they have no influence alltogether, then the claim of
"Unbeka", that Mat profits from them is naught.
> >3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
> >important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
> >Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
> >to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
> >to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
> >We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
> >he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
>
> Experience is very important, how else can you antisipate what is coming
> next. It is also how you improve balance and control. Don't forget as well
> that optimum speed and strength CANNOT be obtained without feeling
> completely at ease and as one with a weapon, and guess what, this comes with
>
> experience.
Of course, you are right.
But please note, taht the point of "Unbeka" was, that Mat's _memories_
would be enough to best two Blademasters at once.
Therefore, I was speaking about Mat's memories, rather than his actual
experiences, and I don't believe, that his _memories_ could improve his
speed or strenght. As for his balance, I assume, that his memories about
staff-fighters _could_ be useful, but balance without speed or strenght,
or control ( I assume, that you mean concentration here) is not enough,
to match highly _trained_ opponents like the ones I mentioned, IMHO;
even if you anticipate how they are going to kill you.
Without proper training, Mat lacks the skill to match a Blademaster,
despite his memories.
I suppose, that I used the terms memory and experience a bit freely, in
my former post, but perhaps you will also note, that I actually claimed,
that Mat needs to _train_more often to improve his skill.
So I would have thought, that the point of my argument was clear,
although it apparently wasn't.
In conclusion, our points are rather similar, AFAICS.
Or do you believe that there is no difference between memories and
training?
> >4. I don't believe, that a fighter could win against two Blademasters.
> >Of course, that is just my opinion.
>
> This I do agree with, assuming the person using the staff is not a
> 'Staffmaster', I don't know what else you would call it.
I also don't believe, that a "Staffmaster" could best two Blademasters,
at least not, if they work together.
But I assume, that this is rather pointless, because I doubt, that there
will be a chance to RAFO, at least, what RJ thinks about this matter.
MR
reman
> against
> >Mat WITH Gawyn. He lost to Mat and Mat was extremely weak. Galad is a
> is,
> >HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
>
> effect against blades. Also, it seems to me that a Staff is better used
> against more than one swordsmen because of its length and general usage.
> Personally I remember thinking how much bullsh*t there was in a scene where
> Galad (arguably Blademaster level) and Gawyn are beat by a very weakened
> Mat, but it is arguable that he had holes in his memory at that time and
> out-thought the two men.
I think the point, if there was one is two-fold.
1) It was to show up Galad and Gawyn, who thought that swords were the be-all
and end-all
of martial combat. Point, Koreans developed Tae Kwon Do (correct me if I'm
wrong) to take
out fully armed Samurai. Also, that because staves are way cheaper, farmers
and peasants tended
to make it their choice of weapon.
2) That Mat really does kick a$$, also it might have been the legacy of
Manetheran blood in him.
And remember, that the best swordsman in history was taken out by a farmer with
a staff. Also,
we have no comparison to how good they really are. For eg. they could be
really crap, with the best
being mediocre by 'real world' standards. Though this is most unlikely.
my $AUD0.02 worth
regards, chris
reman
> Sandy wrote in message <35bd1...@blushng.jps.net>...
> >You must understand, Mat was just recovering from his Healing, and looked
> >considerably more sick than he was. Gawyn and Galad were obviously not
>
snip
> >experience should not be used ot weigh the mastery of either Gawyn or
> Galad,
> >or even Mat.
>
> Alright, I definitely agree with that, and rescind my earlier opinion of
> the whole battle. The question is now rather obvious, if that farmer legend
> about beating the best swordsmen is true, why is a Staff fighter so much
> better than an armed Swordsman? I'm trying to figure out how effective I
> should make Staff fighting in my game and so far I'm seeing it as rather
> effective against most enemies except if they have a sword, in which case it
> seems to get really good, really fast.
Okay, lets have a look at things. We have two people one with sword the other
with staff. Lets
put them against two people, one wearing basic field armour and helm, the other
with no armour. Now a sword is a slashing, piercing and bludgeoning weapon in
this case (ergo Galad and Gawyn) whilst the other is bludgeoning (Mat). It is
now simple logic to work out effictiveness verses the different combatants.
In terms of force delivered the sword is slightly heavier, but the staff is
faster
Staff vs Armoured - More hits, but armour absorbs most of the damage except
around lower legs.
Sword vs Armoured - Because of differing attack mechanisms may pierce and slash
at weak points.
Staff vs Unarmoured - Quick, person takes full effect from the blow.
Sword vs unarmoured - Slower, although wounds cause worse wounds
If your writing an RPG all you have to do is take these scenarios into account.
i.e. the effectiveness of weapons vs different types of armour with differnt
type
of damage, slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning or a combo.
I.e a mace would do bludgeoning + piercing
a sword could do bludgeoning or bludge+slash or pierce
a rapier might be only able to do pierce
a katana might do only slash
bastard sword would do bludgeoning.
scale helps vs. slash
ring is bad vs pierce
plate is good vs all, but is heavy and expensive
anyway I hope this helps.
regards, chris
--
Christopher Day
E-Mail the_...@hotmail.com
Homepage http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/1218
when the rain/when the children reign/keep your conscience in the dark
melt the statues in the park - Fall On Me, REM
Markus Rasch
Matthew Walker <mat...@unreal.org> wrote in article
<35BE939B...@unreal.org>...
>
> Markus Rasch wrote:
> >
> > Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
> > <6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
> >
> > > Was it not Sammael and LLT that reinvented and then mastered
> > > sword fighting in the AoL?
> >
> > Yes, and Be'lal. They all were Blademasters, and Sammael was
> > something like a world-champion at swordsmanship.
>
> Could you please cite? I really don't remember anything like that,
> but I'm likely forgetting some key passage.
Well, it would have been difficult for you to catch the part about
Sammael, being the world champion, because it was only
mentioned in the tWoRJtWoT.<page, 55>
That Be'lal and Sammael were Blademasters is claimed by Loial in
<tDR; ?, The Hammer, 511>.
Later, we see Be' lal with a heron-marked sword <tDR, ?, What is
written in Prophecy, 556>, which confirms Loials claim about him.
That LTT was also a Blademaster is only an (highly probable, IMO)
assumption, because nobody outright claimed it, IIRC.
But, Be' lal at least, claimed that LTT was once a greater
swordsman than Rand, while fighting him.<tDR; ?, WiwiP, 556>
MR
Markus Rasch
Donald S Crankshaw <dsc...@MIT.EDU> wrote in article
<35BE14...@MIT.EDU>...
> Markus Rasch wrote:
> >
> > > So the real question is, HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could
> > > hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
> >
> > I believe, that you overestimate Mat's skill.
>
> I think you're underestimating it: see below.
Well, I don't think so, at least the text supports my position, AFAICS.
> > Aside from his victory in tDR, against Gawyn and Galad, there are
> > no further evidences, that he could match a real Blademaster,
> > without his luck.
> >
> > And, you should keep in mind, that neither Gawyn nor Galad were
> > nearly as good, as they are now.
>
> And Mat hasn't improved? I'd say he's probably improved more than
> either of them. See below.
That is highly questionable, and you didn't provide any textual
evidences for this belief.
Therefore, I disagree.
> > Mat's observation in <tDR; ?, Scouting and Discoveries, 226>
> > proves this:
> >
> > " The tall man [Galad] handled his practice sword _almost_ as
> > deftly as the Warders, ..." [ insert and emphasis mine]
> >
> > Furthermore, I also don't believe, that he would have been able to
> > defeat them, if they had taken him serious, from the beginning.
>
> By the time Galad had recovered his sword, he was taking Mat seriously.
> I'll give you that Mat took Gawyn before Gawyn considered him a threat,
> but Galad had time to prepare himself before facing Mat again.
Yes, Galad was prepared, after Mat took Gawyn out.
Therefore, Mat was better than Galad in tDR, at least, in this scene.
But how good was his performance really? How much skill did he use
to defeat Galad?
I believe, that neither Galad nor Gawyn were nearly up to their present
skill-level. The Warders still outskilled them at the time of Mat's fight.
(see my quote above)
So Mat's performance was pretty decent, but nothing to assume,
that he has the skill of a Blademaster.
> Which brings up the question of where Mat learned he could take a man
> with a sword with his quarterstaff. He certainly has never practiced
> against a man with a sword before: or has he? Going back to the Great
> Hunt, we know from Moiraine that Lan has been working with all three of
> the ta'veren. Rand more than the others because he was using a sword.
> I'm assuming that Lan trained Perrin on how to use his axe, but what
> about Mat? It may explain why Mat was so confident he could take those
> two.
I don't remember, that Mat had a staff with him during tEotW
or tGH; only a longbow.
Mat mentions, that his father, Abell, is a very good quarterstaffer,
after his fight against Galad and Gawyn. So it's probable, that his
da taught him a good bit. Take the element of surprise and an
unfamiliar weapon to defend agaist, and you have an explanation
for Mat's victory, of course, aside from his luck.
> > He had other encounters, which prove, IMO, that he is but a very
> > good fighter, who could defeat anybody short of a Blademaster,
> > but lacks the skill of one.
>
> Like when he was able to defend against twelve Aiel for about a minute
> who were all very intent on killing him. That, if nothing else,
> convinces me of Mat's skill.
Yes, there were a dozen Aiel. But do you believe, that they could attack
Mat all at once? All Mat had to do was hold them for a few moments,
till his men arrived. And you should note, that he was wounded half a
dozen times.<LoC; ?, Heading South, 341-342>
Please note, that I don't argue that he is a very good fighter.
I, merely argue his ability to defeat a highly trained Blademaster.
To defend himself some moments against some Aiel, is a very
notable achievement, but it doesn't qualify him to be in the same
class as Rand, Lan or Galad, all of couse, IMHO.
> > In the Stone of Tear, for instance, he is very hard pressed to defeat
> > Darlin Sisnera, probably a good swordsman, but no Blademaster.
> > <tDR; ?, Into the Stone, 552>
> >
> > Rand, OTOH, is able to defeat five man, with supposedly the skill
> > of Sisnera. < Loc; Lion on the Hill>
>
> There's a difference of about three books between these encounters.
> Both Rand and Mat have improved greatly in that time: Mat more than
> Rand, really. He got those memories and a new weapon in that time.
Well, I think, that we can at least determine, that Mat doesn't
improve his skill until Rhuidean, and up to there he merely had
the skill of a trained fighter or perhaps a good warder.
The encounter with HL Sisnera proves this, IMHO.
Now, why do you believe, that the memories of some generals and
musicians could improve Mat's skill, up to the level of a Blademaster.
Mat doesn't train a minute to improve his abilities, and memories are,
IMHO, no suitable replacement for actual training.
Or do you believe, that Mat's memories cause a sudden increase of
speed and strenght?
I assume, that he is no weakling, and also fast, but Rand trains on a
regurlarly basis. He improves his speed and strenght and his balance
constantly. Wielding the One Power is a task which needs a controlled
mind, a very good exercise to improve his concentration, an important
ability while fighting (see "Thoth" in an other post of this thread and Lan
in <tSR; ?, Imre Stand, 419>
So, there is no reason to assume, that Mat should suddenly possess
the skill of a Blademaster, only because he has some memories.
Nothing in the books proves this, AFAICS.
> > In the Aiel Waste, Mat is about to be killed by a Myrddraal, when
> > somebody saves him.<tSR; ?, Imre Stand, 426>
>
> There's a difference between losing a duel and losing your life in the
> midst of a chaotic battle. Mat was nearly killed by the Myrdraal
> because the darn thing wouldn't die after he stuck his spear through it.
Yea, Mat made a failure.
> He was better able to disable the Myrdraal in the next battle before he
> got around to killing it.
So, he is still learning and improving. In tSR he learns how to kill a
Myrddraal, something Rand was able to do earlier.
In LoC, Mat _survives_ an Aiel attack, while Rand was able to single-
handedly _kill_ eleven assasins in <tDR; ?, Daughter of the Night, 349>
or even kill an (probably not highly skilled) Blademaster as early as tGH.
<tGH; ?, Blademaster, 540>.
> After all, Rand, channeling or not, nearly lost his life to a Trolloc in
> the Stone because some Trolloc he killed fell on him and trapped his
> sword arm.
Well, everybody needs a bit luck sometimes.
Rand is certainly not omnipotent.
But his incident doesn't prove, that _Mat_ possesses
the skill you claim for him.
> > There are still other instances, where Mat is about to loose his life,
> > but for his luck and not his skill.
>
> Sure, plenty of those. But it's not only him. Gawyn won his battle
> with the three Aiel because some horse backed into the last and best of
> them.
He killed three Aiel at once, in a very short time.<aCoS; prologue>
Then he encountered the fourth, a very highly skilled one, which shouldn't
be a surprise, because all Aiel are permanently trained, and some may
even possess the skill of a Blademaster, after all, there are a _lot_ of Aiel.
> Rand didn't really win that famed fight against five men everyone
> likes to point out, he got cracked on the head by the last of them even
> as he went for the kill.
Yes, in a real fight, he would have been dead.
But his performance was none the less very notable.
Souran Maravaile, the greatest Blademaster in Andoran history,
was killed by only four sword fighters.<LoC; ?, Lion on the Hill>
Therefore, it could be argued, that Rand is now the greatest
Andoran Blademaster of all time.
> Still, if we were to set Mat against Rand in a duel, I'd bet on Mat.
Well, then you probably would loose :)
Perhaps, RJ _intends_, that Mat could take out a Blademaster, but
nothing we have seen from him so far, proves this, IMHO.
His performances were decent, and qualify him in my eyes to match
everybody except a Blademaster. But the _text_, proves nothing more.
OTOH, we _know_ for sure, that Rand, Galad or Gawyn can match a
Blademaster, IMNSHO.
MR
Thoth
>"Thoth," you edited out the attributions. Attributions are the little
>sentences that most newsreaders automatically provide for you that lets
>you know who wrote what. You should _never_ edit out the attributions.
>Each post should be an easily digestable nugget of information where you
>can clearly discern who said what, and in reply to whom.
>
>If you're planning in staying in rasfwrj, and haven't already, I'd
>recommend you peruse the rasfwrj FAQ.
>
>o The rasfwrj group FAQ maintained by John Novak can be found at either
> (recombine URLs):
>
> http://www.landfield.com/faqs/by-newsgroup/rec/
> rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan.html
> or
> ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/sf/robert-jordan-faq
Sorry! Was this better??
Rich Boye'
>
> Rich Boye' wrote in message <35BE66...@webspan.net>...
> >"Thoth," you edited out the attributions. Attributions are the little
> >sentences that most newsreaders automatically provide for you that lets
> >you know who wrote what. You should _never_ edit out the attributions.
> >Each post should be an easily digestable nugget of information where you
> >can clearly discern who said what, and in reply to whom.
(snip)
>
> Sorry! Was this better??
The attributions, yes. The editting down on extraneous text still needs
work. Put your
comments directly beneath the bit you are replying to, and delete all
else.
Svein Ove Aas
Matthew Walker wrote:
> Patrick J Murray wrote:
> >
> > Michael L. Clair wrote in message <6pgui3$616$1...@news2.i-2000.com>...
> > >Final question, how long does it take to use this skill (the Flame and >the
> > Void)?
> >
> > I have _no_ idea.
>
> I'd have to say it takes a _real_ long time - I've been trying for
> over two years and the Flame still doesn't stick around for very
> long.
That varies, I think.
At least, I mastered the void 1 1/4 year after starting to read the books.
Which reminds me, there's a possibility that RJ has the foretelling. Who knows?
Besides, if time is circular, you merely have to look back in time. No paradoxes
there.
Oh, yes. Our crazy universe has TWO time-dimensions. Under our conditions, they
act roughly opposite, one barely overcoming the other. Remember the description of
Saidin/dar?
Spiffy McToad
>
> Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
> <6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
>
>
> And, furthermore I think, that if he could use LTT abilities in some way,
IIRC, Rand was fighting with his gloves on, which Toram points out _is_
a handicap as his grip on the sword won't be as good as it could be. He
is also fighting with his coat on (again IIRC). Toram doesn't take him
seriously at first but eventually has to put some effort into defeating
Rand. Yes, Rand was losing, Toram was slowly pushing him back. But
Rand didn't take a hit until the Fog of Death (tm) appeared.
Markus Rasch
Spiffy McToad <spiffy...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35BFD1...@hotmail.com>...
Your memory serves you well; yes, Rand was at a disadvantage.
And, yes, Rand _is_ a Blademaster, and_perhaps_, he would have
won under balanced circumstances.
I didn't argue that.
But my _impression_ is, that AoL Blademasters, especially, long
living channelers, might be even more skilled than the average
modern Blademaster. In this case, LTT's skill, should have been
greater than Toram's.
The reason for this assumption is, that Rand could defeat Lord Turak
in Falme, but was seriously outskilled by Be'lal in Tear, who claimed,
that LTT was once a greater swordsman.
But, I admit, that Torak could also well be a very poor example for an
modern Blademaster, and Be'lal was perhaps extraordinary skilled,
even for an AoL Blademaster.
Therefore, it is also possible, that it exists a wide range of skill under
modern Blademasters (Toram and Lan certainly ouskill Turak by far),
or the Seanchan standards are generally lower (perhaps weaponmastery
has a lower status in Seanchan, because their war tactics are based on
channeling and various beasts).
MR
Rand99999
> Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
>halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
>the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
>the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
>the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
>of whatever was on the end!
It's an ashan'darei. Probably translates into something like 'spear of the
guardian'--darei=spear, ashan sounds like asha'man, guardian. Just a guess.
-------------
Ryan R.
"He Who Just Missed Coming With the Dawn"
Rand99999
>Souran Maravaile, the greatest Blademaster in Andoran history,
>was killed by only four sword fighters.<LoC; ?, Lion on the Hill>
>Therefore, it could be argued, that Rand is now the greatest
>Andoran Blademaster of all time.
In that practice fight that took place in the same chapter you mentioned, Rand
lost to five men--the fifth got him at the same time Rand 'killed' him. So
Rand is about on par with Maravaile.
--------------
Donald S Crankshaw
>
> Donald S Crankshaw <dsc...@MIT.EDU> wrote in article
> <35BE14...@MIT.EDU>...
>
> > Markus Rasch wrote:
> > >
> > > > So the real question is, HOW GOOD IS MAT? I think that Mat could
> > > > hold his own with Rand, or Lan.
> > >
> > > I believe, that you overestimate Mat's skill.
> >
> > I think you're underestimating it: see below.
>
> Well, I don't think so, at least the text supports my position, AFAICS.
And I think this could go on for quite awhile, neither of us convincing
the other. You made some good points, but I think you overlooked some
passages, drew some wrong conclusions, and too readily dismissed some of
my arguments. For my part, there's no smoking gun that I can produce as
absolute proof. I think the only way to convince you is for Mat to kick
Galad's butt again. And the only way to convince me is to see Galad
handily beat Mat in said rematch. And I don't see those two running
into each other in the next book.
I really don't think it's worth the time and energy to pursue an
argument which doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Maybe another day.
Sincerely,
Donald S. Crankshaw
Sturm78470
(Rand99999) writes:
>
>> Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
>>halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
>>the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
>>the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
>>the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
>>of whatever was on the end!
>
>It's an ashan'darei. Probably translates into something like 'spear of the
>guardian'--darei=spear, ashan sounds like asha'man, guardian. Just a guess.
>
>
"Spear" in the Old Tongue is siswai. This is derived from "siswai'aman",
the Spears of the Dragon, and "algai'd'siswai", the fighting spears.
-------------------------------------------
Sturm...@aol.com
Politics- a word consisting of:
Poly-meaning "many", and
Ticks- "small bloodsucking insects".
Andrea Lynn Leistra
Sturm78470 <sturm...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <199807301748...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, rand...@aol.com
>(Rand99999) writes:
>
>>
>>> Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
>>>halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
>>>the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
>>>the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
>>>the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
>>>of whatever was on the end!
>>
>>It's an ashan'darei. Probably translates into something like 'spear of the
>>guardian'--darei=spear, ashan sounds like asha'man, guardian. Just a guess.
>
>"Spear" in the Old Tongue is siswai. This is derived from "siswai'aman",
>the Spears of the Dragon, and "algai'd'siswai", the fighting spears.
"Spear" in the OT is also darei. Look at "Far Dareis Mai". (We know that
the "darei" part is the spear part, from the parallel construction "Far
Aldazar Din", meaning Brothers of the Eagle, where we already know "dar"
and "aldazar" from other phrases.)
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Chris Mullins
:Markus Rasch wrote:
:
:>Souran Maravaile, the greatest Blademaster in Andoran history,
:>was killed by only four sword fighters.<LoC; ?, Lion on the Hill>
:>Therefore, it could be argued, that Rand is now the greatest
:>Andoran Blademaster of all time.
:In that practice fight that took place in the same chapter you mentioned,
Rand
:lost to five men--the fifth got him at the same time Rand 'killed' him. So
:Rand is about on par with Maravaile.
In _Lord Of Chaos_ after Rand tells the Salidar Aes Sedai to take a hike and
heads over to whichever city he went to (I can't believe I can't remember!!
I read the freeking book last night!) and spends about 10 days goofing off.
During this time he was routinly practicing with the 5 best swordsman that
he could find. He was also practicing unarmed compat with Rhuarc and Gaul.
IT seems that he's graduated up to 5 at a time now...
CLM
John Rowat
> Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
> halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
> the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
> the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
> the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
> of whatever was on the end!
It sounds (and looks, on the cover of tFoH) like a naginata, an oriental
(japanese?) weapon which was essentially a stick with a curved
scimitar-type thing on the end... and that would fit perfectly with the
Raven motif, because the raven is the symbol of the Seanchan emperor, and
the seanchan do have a pseudo-oriental feudal society.
'course, I could be completely off-base here...
-John
--
"Looking at the world / Through your innocent eyes
You're seeing the promises / No, they're only lies
And broken dreams"
-Black Sabbath, "Time Machine"
Markus Rasch
Rand99999 <rand...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807301756...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
> Markus Rasch wrote:
>
> >Souran Maravaile, the greatest Blademaster in Andoran history,
> >was killed by only four sword fighters.<LoC; ?, Lion on the Hill>
> >Therefore, it could be argued, that Rand is now the greatest
> >Andoran Blademaster of all time.
>
> In that practice fight that took place in the same chapter you mentioned,
> Rand lost to five men--the fifth got him at the same time Rand 'killed' him.
Yes, I am well aware of this.
It was mentioned in the quoted part of my post, IIRC.
> So Rand is about on par with Maravaile.
Well, Rand "survived" four and "killed" five, while Maravaile
killed only four and died.
But, OTOH, we really haven't enough information to confirm anything,
because we don't know how skilled Rand's adversaries and Maravaile's
assassins were in comparison.
MR
Markus Rasch
Donald S Crankshaw <dsc...@MIT.EDU> wrote in article
<35C0A6...@MIT.EDU>...
[snip discussion about Mat's skill in comparison to a Blademaster]
> And I think this could go on for quite awhile, neither of us convincing
> the other.
Okay, then let's agree to disagree.
MR
Richard J. Hein
original posts, and that is that Mat defeated Galad AND Gawyn, two excellent
swordsmen, just less than blademasters themselves, while he could barely
stand up at all. So, I think that Mat and Rand would be a close match,
especially with Mat in prime condition.
Rick Hein
Richard J. Hein
blade as well as pierce. An ashandarei is a staff with a short sword blade,
which is curved, and slices one way; it can pierce but that is not it's
function; it is not designed to pierce like a spear, but like the
traditional japanese samurai sword, it manages to pierce significantly well.
It is was used as a traditional Chinese weapon, similar to the naginata. It
is also similar to the glaive, which was a European weapon. You can see a
picture at this site:
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/ppostuma/wot_06.htm
Rick Hein
-AW
<snip>
> 3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
> important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
> Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
> to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
> to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
> We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
<snip>
Arrghh... I suggest you go and read _A Book of Five Rings_ by Miyamoto
Musashi.
-AW
Markus Rasch
Richard J. Hein <rick...@puc.net> wrote in article
<6pr2qk$jkp$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
In previous posts of this thread, I pointed out, that Gawyn and Galad
were still outskilled by their warder instructors at the time of the fight
with Mat.
I also pointed out, that Mat wouldn't have been able to defeat them,
if they had taken him seriously from the beginning.
After this incident, there is, IMO, no performance of Mat, which would
prove, that he possesses the skill of a Blademaster, and therefore,
he would now be outskilled by Galad, Gawyn and Rand, who are proven
Blademasters, IMO.
But there are also some people, who disagree with me about this point,
as the thread clearly shows.
MR
Markus Rasch
-AW <do...@spam.me> wrote in article <35C137...@spam.me>...
I admit, that I am certainly no expert, and that my reasoning[1] is solely
based on my ideas, which are based on the books I _have_ read and
my sense of logic, but instead of throwing a book title at me, you could
also _tell_ me what Miyamoto Musashi has to say about this matter,
because I am not in the habit of reading an entire book only because
somebody disagrees with me about something he doesn't feel the need
to explain to me.
Thank you.
MR
[1] You should also note, that I qualified my statement in this thread.
Thoth
>Markus Rasch wrote:
><snip>
>> 3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
>> important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
>> Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
>> to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
>> to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
>> We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
>> he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
><snip>
>
>Arrghh... I suggest you go and read _A Book of Five Rings_ by Miyamoto
>Musashi.
Could you not give us some idea what it says??? Just so we can have this
discussion now rather than later!!
Vermilion
>-AW <do...@spam.me> wrote in article <35C137...@spam.me>...
>>
>> Markus Rasch wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > 3. Experience is fine, but speed, strenght and concentration are more
>> > important, IMHO, once you are trained and know how to fight.
>> > Mat doesn't strike me as the type who trains often, so it is reasonable
>> > to assume, that he lacks speed and strenght, at least in comparison
>> > to Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram Riatin, Rand or Gawyn.
>> > We also know, that he lacks the ability of high concentration, because
>> > he couldn't master the Flame and the Void.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Arrghh... I suggest you go and read _A Book of Five Rings_ by Miyamoto
>> Musashi.
>I admit, that I am certainly no expert, and that my reasoning[1] is solely
>based on my ideas, which are based on the books I _have_ read and
>my sense of logic, but instead of throwing a book title at me, you could
>also _tell_ me what Miyamoto Musashi has to say about this matter,
>because I am not in the habit of reading an entire book only because
>somebody disagrees with me about something he doesn't feel the need
>to explain to me.
It's a very short book, it wouldn't take much more than an hour or so to
read. I guess Jordan fans think book = days and days of material ;) Of
course, while you might read the book in two hours, understanding it all would
take much longer. I'm not precisely certain what the previous poster expected
you to find by reading it, except perhaps that experience is more valuable
than you've attributed it. Then again, some accounts describe Musashi as a
pretty big guy, often able to overwhelm an opponent on strength alone, so I
really don't know...
>[1] You should also note, that I qualified my statement in this thread.
Nothing wrong with covering your ass ;)
- Vermilion, who thinks experience will generally beat natural ability,
except in those cases of true prodigy like skill.
Markus Rasch
Vermilion <dun...@email.uc.edu> wrote in article
<dunnetg.71...@email.uc.edu>...
>
> In article "Markus Rasch" <mark...@metronet.de.SPAMSHIELD> writes:
>
> >-AW <do...@spam.me> wrote in article <35C137...@spam.me>...
>
> >> Markus Rasch wrote:
[snip Mat doesn't possess the skill of a Blademaster, because he
doesn't train his speed and strenght, and therefore isn't in the same
class as Lan, Sammael, Rhuarc, Galad, Bruan, Toram, Rand or Gawyn]
> >> Arrghh... I suggest you go and read _A Book of Five Rings_ by Miyamoto
> >> Musashi.
[ snip my polite request of an explanation]
[ snip Vermilions explanation, that "A book of Five Rings" is a short book
and claims that experience is more important than I may have claimed,
but also not always]
> >[1] You should also note, that I qualified my statement in this thread.
>
> Nothing wrong with covering your ass ;)
Well, I almost assumed, that he was speaking about the experience part.
But if he would have read the context of my claim and my differential
argumentation, he would have known, that I was speaking about Mat's
memories, rather than his actual experiences.
Therefore, his "Arrghh" was rather unqualified, IMO.
MR
-AW
>
> Vermilion <dun...@email.uc.edu> wrote in article
> <dunnetg.71...@email.uc.edu>...
>
> [ snip Vermilions explanation, that "A book of Five Rings" is a short book
> and claims that experience is more important than I may have claimed,
> but also not always]
>
> But if he would have read the context of my claim and my differential
> argumentation, he would have known, that I was speaking about Mat's
> memories, rather than his actual experiences.
>
> Therefore, his "Arrghh" was rather unqualified, IMO.
>
> MR
*shrug* Now we see the effects of fatigue on writing skills.
Ooops.
Seriously though, my point, had I been lucent enough to make it,
was that experience and memory have huge areas of overlap, and that
the main part of being a good swordsman is _strategy_, which is
emphasized in the book. Strategy comes from a combination of
experience and knowledge (memories, in this case). Mat has
gained experience in using his spear in his present lifetime, and
has memories (I think... I could be wrong, it's happened before)
of using a similar weapon in previous lifetimes (mostly Manetheren
lives, I believe).
Cheers,
-AW
Markus Rasch
-AW <do...@spam.me> wrote in article <35C25E...@spam.me>...
[snip]
> Seriously though, my point, had I been lucent enough to make it,
> was that experience and memory have huge areas of overlap, and that
> the main part of being a good swordsman is _strategy_, which is
> emphasized in the book. Strategy comes from a combination of
> experience and knowledge (memories, in this case). Mat has
> gained experience in using his spear in his present lifetime, and
> has memories (I think... I could be wrong, it's happened before)
> of using a similar weapon in previous lifetimes (mostly Manetheren
> lives, I believe).
Your point has certainly some value.
In a fight between two adversaries with similar physical abilities
(speed, strenght and balance) and a comparable mental control,
the more experienced and knowledgeable one would certainly win.
The question is now, how important are Mat's strategical abilities in
a duel, in comparison to mere technical skill and concentration.
Mat's actual experiences are less than Lan's, Rhuarc's
or even Rand's (Rand trains a lot).
And mere knowledge, won't be enough against an opponent,
whose skill is greater than Mat's, IMO.
(You can't win against a fencing master only by reading about fencing)
I don't argue, that Mat possesses the potential to improve
his skill, even to the level of a Blademaster.
But the only way to achieve this level of skill, is to _train_
his speed, strenght, balance and concentration.
The way everybody else does it.
MR
James Andrew Bohall
> the main part of being a good swordsman is _strategy_
Just wondering, have you ever really fought anyone with a sword?
For a while, I played around with the fighter's guild of the Society for
Creative Anochronisms. While they don't use real swords, a wooden stick
with sufficient weights added makes for an accurate substitute. Most
duels are over within 10 seconds. That's how long it takes for two evenly
matched opponents to finish. Within those ten seconds each participant
will attack roughly 20 to 30 times. The key to winning a sword fight is
speed, accuracy, and careful attention to the opponent in order to defend
rapidly. The reason why Rand would learn forms is to increase speed of
attack, and to be able to use reflex to start an appropriate defense for
an opponent's attack. Strategy is not a reflex action.
James Andrew Bohall
> Mat's actual experiences are less than Lan's, Rhuarc's
> or even Rand's (Rand trains a lot).
There is Mat POV (I don't remeber where tho) that essentially states that
Mat no longer can tell where his borrowed memories begin or end. In other
words, Mat has the experience of all these people from long ago. In his
mind, they are the memories of someone else. It is his own actions he
remembers. (Like remembering that he danced with a Sea folk, not someone
he else he remembers dancing with a sea folk). It's like he lived as many
people. His own experience would then be much greater than Lan or Rhuarc.
> And mere knowledge, won't be enough against an opponent,
> whose skill is greater than Mat's, IMO.
> (You can't win against a fencing master only by reading about fencing)
Mat didn't read about fencing. He lived as a fencing master. He lived as
many fencing masters.
Markus Rasch
James Andrew Bohall <boh...@students.uiuc.edu> wrotein article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.980801...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>
> On 1 Aug 1998, Markus Rasch wrote:
>
> > Mat's actual experiences are less than Lan's, Rhuarc's
> > or even Rand's (Rand trains a lot).
>
> There is Mat POV (I don't remeber where tho) that essentially states that
> Mat no longer can tell where his borrowed memories begin or end. In other
> words, Mat has the experience of all these people from long ago. In his
> mind, they are the memories of someone else. It is his own actions he
> remembers. (Like remembering that he danced with a Sea folk, not someone
> he else he remembers dancing with a sea folk). It's like he lived as many
> people. His own experience would then be much greater than Lan or Rhuarc.
IIRC, Mat has the memories of hundreds of people, but often, these memories
consist only of a very short time. Therefore, he didn't live the whole life of
these people, but only short periods.
It should also be pointed out, that the persons whose memories he possesses
aren't necessarily all weapon masters. All we know for sure is, that they were
generals, advisors, componists or mere soldiers.
The experience of average fighters might be less usual, than Lan's or Rhuarc's.
It seems also probable, that the main part of his memories, in which he
fights in a battle or duel, consists of sword-fights, rather than his actual
weapon.
We certainly haven't seen a sudden increase of Mat's skill, which would prove,
that his memories balance the skill of a _Blademaster_, IMO.
My point is, that his memories are certainly useful, but doesn't qualify him
to achieve the skill of someone like Lan, Rhuarc or even Rand.
> > And mere knowledge, won't be enough against an opponent,
> > whose skill is greater than Mat's, IMO.
> > (You can't win against a fencing master only by reading about fencing)
>
> Mat didn't read about fencing. He lived as a fencing master. He lived as
> many fencing masters.
Well, the reading part is, of course, inapprobiate in Mat's case.
I only wanted to make my point clear, that knowlege doesn't serve you
too well, if your opponent is faster than you.
The original point was, that _mainly_ strategy, which consists of
experiences and knowledge, makes a good swordsman.
This point was apparently claimed by Miyamoto Musashi in
"A Book of Five Rings".
[actual "-AW" claimed this position as Musashi's in this thread]
I tried to apply his claim to Mat's case, by putting Mat's qualities in
the categories experience and knowledge.
The question is, if Mat's memories should be attributed to knowledge
or experience. I attributed it to knowledge, because Mat doesn't profit
from it like an other person, who _actually_ experiences a fight, because
Mat can't improve his speed, strenght, balance or concentration through
them.
Perhaps, they also could be attributed to experience.
But even then, it is questionable, IMO, if his memories hold the same
value as Lan's or Rhuarc's, as I pointed out above.
So, in conclusion, I don't think, that Mat possesses a greater strategic
ability in a duel (note, not a battle) than a Blademaster.
Please note, that I am merely speaking about strategy, and not skill.
I _myself_, find Musashi's claim (or rather "-AW's") very questionable,
because I believe, that he undervalues other abilities, like speed,
strenght and balance.
MR
warden
of an aiel clan is the best they have, if Matt can defeat an Aiel leader, a
person who has trained with weapons his whole life i think he may well be
able to defeat rand. It would be a good fight tho:):)I'd like to see a
serious battle between Rand and Matt, Rand and Lan, and Matt and Lan
Richard J. Hein wrote in message <6pr2qk$jkp$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
>There is just one point, you probably mentioned, but I didn't see the
>original posts, and that is that Mat defeated Galad AND Gawyn, two
excellent
>swordsmen, just less than blademasters themselves, while he could barely
>stand up at all. So, I think that Mat and Rand would be a close match,
>especially with Mat in prime condition.
>
>
>
Eric P. McCoy
> On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, -AW wrote:
> > the main part of being a good swordsman is _strategy_
> Just wondering, have you ever really fought anyone with a sword?
Just wondering, have *you*?
> For a while, I played around with the fighter's guild of the Society for
> Creative Anochronisms. While they don't use real swords, a wooden stick
> with sufficient weights added makes for an accurate substitute.
So this makes you an expert on swordplay?
> Most
> duels are over within 10 seconds. That's how long it takes for two evenly
> matched opponents to finish. Within those ten seconds each participant
> will attack roughly 20 to 30 times. The key to winning a sword fight is
> speed, accuracy, and careful attention to the opponent in order to defend
> rapidly.
Show me a good swordsman fencing an equally-talented opponent who can
last more than five seconds if he's only defending. I'd be surprised
if he could last more than two or three attacks.
You need to counterattack. Period. And deciding *how* to
counterattack is strategy. There's not a whole lot of standing around
and judging your opponent in a real swordfight, unless you both suck.
> The reason why Rand would learn forms is to increase speed of
> attack, and to be able to use reflex to start an appropriate defense for
> an opponent's attack. Strategy is not a reflex action.
Rand has to decide which form to use to counter each attack. Sounds
like strategy to me. Actually, when I was first learning fencing,
my instructor warned me not to practice the same thing too often - it
makes you quicker to do it, but it also makes you predictable. The
trick lies in keeping your opponent off-balance until you get an
advantage (basically, he makes a mistake).
If you've ever had formal instruction in any sort of swordplay, your
teacher was worthless.
--
Eric McCoy (emc...@hamilton.edu)
"scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which other faiths are based."
Ron Charlotte
<airc...@i-2000.com> wrote:
> Alright, I definitely agree with that, and rescind my earlier opinion of
>the whole battle. The question is now rather obvious, if that farmer legend
>about beating the best swordsmen is true, why is a Staff fighter so much
>better than an armed Swordsman? I'm trying to figure out how effective I
>should make Staff fighting in my game and so far I'm seeing it as rather
>effective against most enemies except if they have a sword, in which case it
>seems to get really good, really fast.
Ok, in a given fight with a staff or polearm against a swordsman using
a sword one or two handed and no shield, as long as there is room for
movement, the staff of polearm has an edge between any two fighters of
equal experience. Generally, the greater reach and multiple attack
options are a plus. Against a man with a shield, or in an area with
limited mobility, the swordsman will eat the polearm person alive
unless the polearm user is _really_ good.
> Alright, forgive me for my ignorance but didn't Mat fight a certain Aiel
>and kill him? He was using his spear thing at the time but wasn't that a
>tough battle for him? I personally don't remember and don't have access to
>that book. I'm just curious because that is one of the battles that I
>remember Mat being in in the last couple of books. This is really just an
>exercise in gauging his chances in a fight with the other "super powers" of
>Randland.
Yeah, he killed Couladin. RJ cut around the scene, though, and
presented the aftermath as a fiat accompli. Taking on _any_
experienced Aiel in a polearm fight is tough by any standards. These
people developed a unique spear fighting techinque over the centuries.
It does make Mat a very tough opponent.
>
--
Ron Charlotte -- Gainesville, FL
Ron Charlotte
wrote:
>I don't remember the specifics but the Aiel are dedicated so battles with
>them are always tough. It a bit like the assassination theory that says if
>an assassin is willing to give up everything to make the kill there is know
>way to stop him (I'm paraphrasing here). Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
>halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
>the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
>the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
>the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
>of whatever was on the end!
From the description, it's a lot like the japanese naginata, which is
basically a short sword on a stick.
Dylan F. Alexander
McCoy) wrote:
}James Andrew Bohall <boh...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
}> For a while, I played around with the fighter's guild of the Society for
}> Creative Anochronisms. While they don't use real swords, a wooden stick
}> with sufficient weights added makes for an accurate substitute.
}
}So this makes you an expert on swordplay?
}
}> Most
}> duels are over within 10 seconds. That's how long it takes for two evenly
}> matched opponents to finish. Within those ten seconds each participant
}> will attack roughly 20 to 30 times. The key to winning a sword fight is
}> speed, accuracy, and careful attention to the opponent in order to defend
}> rapidly.
}
}Show me a good swordsman fencing an equally-talented opponent who can
}last more than five seconds if he's only defending. I'd be surprised
}if he could last more than two or three attacks.
Well, sort of. How much room do I have to back up? But yeah, you're
mostly right. And I point out that the fencing you are familiar with
(presumably foil, epee, maybe saber) is probably more than a little
different than just beating at each other with heavy sticks, which
seems to be what the SCA does.
--
Dylan Alexander dy...@tamu.edu
"Please Dylan, in the name of all that's holy, leave us be. If
annoyance were a crime, you'd be Jeffrey Dahmer." - C. Chase
James Andrew Bohall
> > For a while, I played around with the fighter's guild of the Society for
> > Creative Anochronisms. While they don't use real swords, a wooden stick
> > with sufficient weights added makes for an accurate substitute.
>
> So this makes you an expert on swordplay?
Not an expert, but I have a much better idea of it than someone who has
not had any experience with swords.
> Show me a good swordsman fencing an equally-talented opponent who can
> last more than five seconds if he's only defending. I'd be surprised
> if he could last more than two or three attacks.
>
> You need to counterattack. Period. And deciding *how* to
> counterattack is strategy. There's not a whole lot of standing around
> and judging your opponent in a real swordfight, unless you both suck.
Most of the matches I have seen or participated in were between two people
using sword-shield. Defense takes on a much different attitude with a
shield. The people who use great weopons (anything two-handed) or two
weapons fight much differently. Every single defensive move also attempts
to strike the enemy. There is no counterattack when every movement of the
weapon is an attempt to strike. Movement is also a very key element. Just
for example, consider a polearm versus a sword-shield. Polearm wants to
stay 6 feet away, sword-shield 2 feet. The majority of such a match is
movement. There is no counterattack.
> Rand has to decide which form to use to counter each attack. Sounds
> like strategy to me. Actually, when I was first learning fencing,
> my instructor warned me not to practice the same thing too often - it
> makes you quicker to do it, but it also makes you predictable. The
> trick lies in keeping your opponent off-balance until you get an
> advantage (basically, he makes a mistake).
> If you've ever had formal instruction in any sort of swordplay, your
> teacher was worthless.
What is the definition of strategy here? Is strategy the methods used to
train, or the selection of specific action to take in a fight? As I read
the descriptions of swordfighting, it sounds very predictable. Rand sees
his opponent using a certain form, and responds with a counterform and
vice versa. I do not know if this is the exact quote, but boar-rushing
down-the-mountain is countered by river undercuts-the-bank. Do you see
what I am getting at here? The victor isn't the one who thinks the best
or chooses the best way attack. The victor is who executes the forms the
fastest, and/or responds the quickest to an opponents form. This sounds a
lot more like reflex than anything. Train a certain response to a certain
action by an opponent. No where has any duel-scene showed us a swordsman
deciding to use one form rather than another to counter an attack.
Reflexes and training are the deciding factors, at least in WOT.
As for your comment about my sword-training. Fencing and the
sword-fighting I learned are very different. For one thing, my opponents
and I were rarely equally armed. Weapons are restricted to anything a
fighter in the medievil time would use. Polearms, axes, spears, mace,
morning-star, two-handed swords, long-swords, short-swords. Strategy
includes choosing the proper weapon to use. Then training takes over.
Just for reference, most weapons are used with chopping attacks, but a
fighter with stabbing points have the best flexibility. I've really been
surprised when facing a great-sword that also had a butt-spike. (Being
closer to him than a foot was not a safe range). I have no experience
with fencing, but I would be intrigued with how a medieval trained fighter
would fare against a fencer.
James Andrew Bohall
> Ok, in a given fight with a staff or polearm against a swordsman using
> a sword one or two handed and no shield, as long as there is room for
> movement, the staff of polearm has an edge between any two fighters of
> equal experience. Generally, the greater reach and multiple attack
> options are a plus. Against a man with a shield, or in an area with
> limited mobility, the swordsman will eat the polearm person alive
> unless the polearm user is _really_ good.
A pole-arm is not a fast weapon. Balance is bad. However, the range is
incredible, as is the strength of an attack. True, in confined area, the
swordsman wins. Against a shield, the swordsman is in real trouble. A
pole-arm will simply bite throught the shield, or knock it aside. The
only chance sword-shield has is to get inside the pole-arm swing range in
which case the pole-arm is now in real trouble. The fight then becomes
all dependent on whoever moves the fastest.
Eric P. McCoy
> > > For a while, I played around with the fighter's guild of the Society for
> > > Creative Anochronisms. While they don't use real swords, a wooden stick
> > > with sufficient weights added makes for an accurate substitute.
> > So this makes you an expert on swordplay?
> Not an expert, but I have a much better idea of it than someone who has
> not had any experience with swords.
Yeah, the way someone who's driven a car in a parking lot has a better
idea of race driving than someone who's never been *in* a car before.
> > Show me a good swordsman fencing an equally-talented opponent who can
> > last more than five seconds if he's only defending. I'd be surprised
> > if he could last more than two or three attacks.
> > You need to counterattack. Period. And deciding *how* to
> > counterattack is strategy. There's not a whole lot of standing around
> > and judging your opponent in a real swordfight, unless you both suck.
> Most of the matches I have seen or participated in were between two people
> using sword-shield.
OK, so you've decided not debate this in the context of tWoT?
> Defense takes on a much different attitude with a
> shield. The people who use great weopons (anything two-handed) or two
> weapons fight much differently.
*Every* different weapon is used differently. If you're using a two-
handed weapon, you're necessarily going to be slower, which places
you at a disadvantage for everything except attacking, where sheer
inertia will help you batter through your opponent's defenses.
> Every single defensive move also attempts
> to strike the enemy.
An attempt to strike the enemy is, by nature, offensive.
> There is no counterattack when every movement of the
> weapon is an attempt to strike.
True - if we're using the same terminology. A counterattack is when you
attack right after your opponent, acting under the assumption that he'll
miss. If you're using real swords, that's often a *very* stupid thing
to do. (It's usually stupid *anyway*.)
If you mean "counterattack" as in "parry-riposte," well, you can't make
your opponent miss *all* the time. Not unless you're much better than
he is.
> Movement is also a very key element. Just
> for example, consider a polearm versus a sword-shield. Polearm wants to
> stay 6 feet away, sword-shield 2 feet. The majority of such a match is
> movement. There is no counterattack.
In a sense. Again, you're taking this completely out of the context of
tWoT. True, distance is important, especially with a very different
reach (as in the situation you describe). But it's not *that*
important, especially when the weapons are similar.
> > Rand has to decide which form to use to counter each attack. Sounds
> > like strategy to me. Actually, when I was first learning fencing,
> > my instructor warned me not to practice the same thing too often - it
> > makes you quicker to do it, but it also makes you predictable. The
> > trick lies in keeping your opponent off-balance until you get an
> > advantage (basically, he makes a mistake).
> What is the definition of strategy here? Is strategy the methods used to
> train, or the selection of specific action to take in a fight?
You're taught strategy when training, and you later use it during a
fight (to select what action you should use).
> As I read
> the descriptions of swordfighting, it sounds very predictable.
It isn't.
> Rand sees
> his opponent using a certain form, and responds with a counterform and
> vice versa.
True. But there are probably twenty or thirty different counters from
which he can choose.
A head cut comes in, you parry. You then have the option of ducking and
hitting his right side or sweeping your blade around to cut his head.
Or you can go to either side and try for the shoulder, or you can close
a little less and try a moulinet.
I count five counters from the same parry, and that's not even counting
beats, feints, fleches, binds, or disarmament moves. Just a quick
tally, there are about twenty-five possibilities from that parry.
> I do not know if this is the exact quote, but boar-rushing
> down-the-mountain is countered by river undercuts-the-bank. Do you see
> what I am getting at here? The victor isn't the one who thinks the best
> or chooses the best way attack. The victor is who executes the forms the
> fastest, and/or responds the quickest to an opponents form. This sounds a
> lot more like reflex than anything.
Find me a fencer who's learned one counter for all attacks until it's
second nature, and I'll beat him (almost) every time. Hell, I'll even
make it easier for him and throw out right-of-way.
I cut head, he parries, cuts side, lands. 0-1. I cut head, he parries,
cuts side, I parry, cut side, land. 1-1. I cut head, he parries, cuts
side, I parry, cut side, land. 2-1. And so on. Simplified, true, but
the principle is the same.
Trust me. I've fenced people like that. Once you determine the moves
they know, they're easy to beat.
> Train a certain response to a certain
> action by an opponent. No where has any duel-scene showed us a swordsman
> deciding to use one form rather than another to counter an attack.
> Reflexes and training are the deciding factors, at least in WOT.
Reflexes and *practice* are the deciding factors.
> As for your comment about my sword-training. Fencing and the
> sword-fighting I learned are very different. For one thing, my opponents
> and I were rarely equally armed.
Which does not happen a lot in tWoT. The biggest "inequalities" we've seen,
to my recollection, are short-spear vs. hand-and-a-half sword.
> Weapons are restricted to anything a
> fighter in the medievil time would use. Polearms, axes, spears, mace,
> morning-star, two-handed swords, long-swords, short-swords. Strategy
> includes choosing the proper weapon to use. Then training takes over.
> Just for reference, most weapons are used with chopping attacks, but a
> fighter with stabbing points have the best flexibility.
Except that a point attack can be easily parried by a swordsman who
is prepared for it. Don't get me wrong, it sure has its uses, but
you can see it coming a mile away.
> I've really been
> surprised when facing a great-sword that also had a butt-spike. (Being
> closer to him than a foot was not a safe range).
What in God's name were you doing *a foot away*? You only need a few
inches of blade to inflict a serious wound. You should be five or six
feet away, on average, when you aren't engaged in bladework.
Actually, if you're good, an inch of steel inside flesh is plenty to
cause a killing or incapacitating blow.
> I have no experience
> with fencing, but I would be intrigued with how a medieval trained fighter
> would fare against a fencer.
Depends on the style of fencing. If you throw out right of way and give
a sabreur a heavier weapon, I imagine it'd at least be entertaining.
Personally, I doubt a foil- or epeeist would stand much of a chance, but
that may be just my prejudices showing. I don't know enough about
rapier or any of the less-popular variations to speak for them.
--
Eric McCoy (emc...@hamilton.edu)
"backbite, vt. To speak of a man as you find him when he can't
find you." - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Thoth
>Eric P. McCoy wrote:
[Snip - I'm better than you, no I'm better than you, no my dads bigger
than your dad, no...]
>Most of the matches I have seen or participated in were between two people
>using sword-shield. Defense takes on a much different attitude with a
shield.
Yeah, you can hide. This is not fighting with a sword. This is fighting
with a sword and shield. What you will find is that you slash/chop with the
sword in your right hand and then block with the shield in your left. This
was standard military tactics of many armies in the 'real world'. The point
was a sword can really only defend one attack at a time, ideal for a duel
but not good in a battle, a shield on the other hand can defend against many
things including arrows, all at the same time.
>The people who use great weopons (anything two-handed) or two
>weapons fight much differently. Every single defensive move also attempts
>to strike the enemy. There is no counterattack when every movement of the
>weapon is an attempt to strike. Movement is also a very key element. Just
>for example, consider a polearm versus a sword-shield. Polearm wants to
>stay 6 feet away, sword-shield 2 feet. The majority of such a match is
>movement. There is no counterattack.
It's called distance. Everyone has a different 'distance' that they would
like to be from their opponent. Even if they both have similar weapons this
distance may be different. The battle is to get to your optimum distance
without injury.
There is always counter attack! The easiest way to win is if your opponent
attacks off balance, you then have an easy counter to finish. The tactics
(or strategy if you like) come in trying to force your opponent off balance.
Note: Two good swordsmen could fight forever (because if you good you have
a defence to every possible attack) if they both stay calm and don't become
off balance, and if they have equal fitness.
>> Rand has to decide which form to use to counter each attack. Sounds
>> like strategy to me. Actually, when I was first learning fencing,
>> my instructor warned me not to practice the same thing too often - it
>> makes you quicker to do it, but it also makes you predictable. The
>> trick lies in keeping your opponent off-balance until you get an
>> advantage (basically, he makes a mistake).
I think I've just repeated this (don't worry, you said it first). However
in martial arts you practice the same technique over and over until you do
it without thinking then you do the same for another technique. When you
have done this for all techniques you fight someone to try and practiceit in
a 'real' situation. I think what your instructor was saying is if you keep
doing the same thing it becomes predictable. What I am saying is practice
until every move seems natural.
>> If you've ever had formal instruction in any sort of swordplay, your
>> teacher was worthless.
I can't comment!
>What is the definition of strategy here? Is strategy the methods used to
>train, or the selection of specific action to take in a fight? As I read
>the descriptions of swordfighting, it sounds very predictable. Rand sees
>his opponent using a certain form, and responds with a counterform and
>vice versa. I do not know if this is the exact quote, but boar-rushing
>down-the-mountain is countered by river undercuts-the-bank. Do you see
>what I am getting at here? The victor isn't the one who thinks the best
>or chooses the best way attack. The victor is who executes the forms the
>fastest, and/or responds the quickest to an opponents form. This sounds a
>lot more like reflex than anything.
What you seem to be ignoring is there could be two or more different
responces to each attack. As an example for ANY attack you should be able
to avoid the attack or block the attack (assuming you can bring your sword
to bare). There will also be several ways to both block and avoid, so
decisions do have to be made. What make you a Blademaster rather than dead
is making the correct choises.
>Train a certain response to a certain action by an opponent. No where has
any duel-scene >showed us a swordsman deciding to use one form rather than
another to counter an attack.
>Reflexes and training are the deciding factors, at least in WOT.
Just because RJ doen't tell us the decisions are being made doesn't mean
they aren't.
>As for your comment about my sword-training. Fencing and the
>sword-fighting I learned are very different. For one thing, my opponents
>and I were rarely equally armed. Weapons are restricted to anything a
>fighter in the medievil time would use. Polearms, axes, spears, mace,
>morning-star, two-handed swords, long-swords, short-swords. Strategy
>includes choosing the proper weapon to use. Then training takes over.
>Just for reference, most weapons are used with chopping attacks, but a
>fighter with stabbing points have the best flexibility. I've really been
>surprised when facing a great-sword that also had a butt-spike. (Being
>closer to him than a foot was not a safe range). I have no experience
>with fencing, but I would be intrigued with how a medieval trained fighter
>would fare against a fencer.
I don't know too much about fencing, but it always seems to be training for
a certain type of sword (a foil?), to fight against the same sort of sword.
This is a good starting point but when you have managed that you should try
fighting against other types of sword and then other weapons entirely.
However fencing does have a syllabus which you work you way through. This
other type of fighting sounds like everyone pick a weapon and see how many
people you can 'kill'. You are learning but there doesn't seem to be much
tuition. If you fought someone any good you would not do particularly well.
Fighting with a sword is more than just chopping! If you look at the
Japanese arts of Iai Jutsu and Kendo, to name but two, there were many
different Ryu for learning the sword (Ryu means, roughly, martial
tradition), upwards of 500. Movement you say, how do you move I say.
Chopping you say, how do you chop I say. There are many ways to do each
move with a sword and they are all suited for different situations. When
you have mastered them all and know when they should be used I think you
might admit you have underestimated sword fighting. As for Eric I would say
keep up the fencing, but if you really want to learn the complete use of a
sword try Kendo or Iai Jutsu as well.
Thoth
Eric P. McCoy wrote in message <87u33vj...@hamilton.edu>...
If your talking duel I think it would probably down to fighter ability, ie
neither weapon would have outright advantage. If you were talking street
fight I thing the fencer would be dead before it started! Drawing a sword
correctly is a large part of fighting. If you're a real master, as many
Samurai (using the same or similar type of swords to WoT) were, the draw
would be a killing strike.
Thoth
That depends on how you use the pole-arm. I CAN use a Bo-Staff so it is
fast. Any attack from a sword you block in the perpendicular direction and
then use the other end (Oh wow, does a Bo have two ends? It's a miracle!)
to counter attack. So if the attack was a jab you block side to side. If
the attack was left to right you block top to bottom. The counter can be
many things but bare in mind that the sword cannot really block because it's
still trying to attack you, even thought you have already blocked it!!
Michael Bruce
: > > > For a while, I played around with the fighter's guild of the Society for
: > > > Creative Anochronisms. While they don't use real swords, a wooden stick
: > > > with sufficient weights added makes for an accurate substitute.
: *Every* different weapon is used differently. If you're using a two-
: handed weapon, you're necessarily going to be slower, which places
: you at a disadvantage for everything except attacking, where sheer
: inertia will help you batter through your opponent's defenses.
I'll just jump in here for a moment. I was sitting at home today
watching the History Channel, when a program on swords came on. They
had two guys wielding really huge two handed swords. These were
normal-sized guys, and the swords were made almost exactly like they
would have been Many Years Ago. They were tossing these things around
like little sticks. I'm saying they were attacking quickly, and
effectively with these things. There was no bashing going on, this
was quick fighting.
: > Every single defensive move also attempts
: > to strike the enemy.
: An attempt to strike the enemy is, by nature, offensive.
And they made a lot of purely defensive moves.
The way they were fighting was gotten from actual swordplay manuals
from the time the swords were made.
--
Michael Bruce | br...@infinet.com | http://www.infinet.com/~bruce
I used to feel unhappy that I didn't have a neat .sig with a big ASCII
graphic for the world to see. Then I read alt.fan.warlord.
[Powered by Linux with some help from the GNU project.]
Jonathan Woodward
Spiffy McToad <spiffy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Markus Rasch wrote:
>>
>> Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
>> <6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
>>
>> And, furthermore I think, that if he could use LTT abilities in some way,
>> he should have been able to defeat Toram Riatin in aCoS.
>
> IIRC, Rand was fighting with his gloves on, which Toram points out _is_
> a handicap as his grip on the sword won't be as good as it could be. He
> is also fighting with his coat on (again IIRC).
I don't really buy this. Rand is quite experienced with his sword, he knows what will
handicap him and what will not. If the coat or gloves were a problem, then he would
have removed them (the way he removes his real sword).
> Toram doesn't take him
> seriously at first but eventually has to put some effort into defeating
> Rand. Yes, Rand was losing, Toram was slowly pushing him back. But
> Rand didn't take a hit until the Fog of Death (tm) appeared.
I think that this is an interesting point. Even if Rand was being pushed back, that
doesn't mean that he was any worse than Toram, just that it takes more energy to go on
offense than defense. If your opponent is going to the extra effort to be offensive,
you let them (as long as you can afford to).
However, I'm not sure Rand actually was being forced back. Thinking about it, Rand was
trying to influence Toram with Ta'veren-ness. Perhaps he felt that drawing out the
fight (possibly even losing, after a while!) would make a favorable impression. And it
seems to have worked, a bit - Toram is quite upset when he realizes that Rand is the
Dragon Reborn, 'tricking' him.
Either way, I don't think Rand intended for the fight to end the way it did. He just
had different standards for when the fight should end than Toram did.
Given these various factors, it's hard to be sure whether Rand and Toram are about
equal, or whether one of them is better. However, I'd probably lean towards Rand being
better.
Jonathan Woodward
P.S. As far as Rand, Mat, and Lan... Under normal circumstances, there's no way Rand or
Mat can match Lan. Think of how good Lan was before (the best of the Warders, etc), and
then consider that he's even better now. Lan isn't blademaster level - he's better.
Mat is also afraid that Lan might kill him for speaking rudely of Nynaeve, but that
doesn't really mean anything.
P.P.S. From his display with Toram, I'd say Rand is at about the standard blademaster
level (although it's hard to be sure, as mentioned above). I would tend to place Mat
similarly. He over-matches Myrddraal now, and defeated the obviously skilled Couladin.
Furthermore, this all took place a while ago - whether or not Mat's battles should count
as practice, I'd imagine that RJ has him getting better. So, it's not really clear
who's better - it would depend on the circumstances.
P.P.P.S. I would rate Gawyn at about blademaster level, similar to Rand and Mat. Galad,
though... even skill can be insufficient to protect you in a chaotic situation such as
being surrounded by a wild mob. Combined with Gawyn's belief that Galad is better than
he is, I think Galad might be the only person able to approach Lan.
Eric P. McCoy
be good for most purposes. I've tried to manually correct it below.
wood...@cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Woodward) writes:
> In article <35BFD1...@hotmail.com>,
> Spiffy McToad <spiffy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Markus Rasch wrote:
> >> Thoth <bad...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
> >> <6plmit$or5$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>...
> >> And, furthermore I think, that if he could use LTT abilities in some way,
> >> he should have been able to defeat Toram Riatin in aCoS.
> > IIRC, Rand was fighting with his gloves on, which Toram points out _is_
> > a handicap as his grip on the sword won't be as good as it could be. He
> > is also fighting with his coat on (again IIRC).
> I don't really buy this. Rand is quite experienced with his sword,
> he knows what will handicap him and what will not. If the coat or
> gloves were a problem, then he would have removed them (the way he
> removes his real sword).
If he took off his coat or gloves, he would've shown the two dragons
from Rhuidean, thus revealing who he was. Or maybe he was afraid that
his rippling biceps, as evident on the cover, would, when exposed,
cause Caraline [1] to swoon.
> > Toram doesn't take him
> > seriously at first but eventually has to put some effort into defeating
> > Rand. Yes, Rand was losing, Toram was slowly pushing him back. But
> > Rand didn't take a hit until the Fog of Death (tm) appeared.
> I think that this is an interesting point. Even if Rand was being
> pushed back, that doesn't mean that he was any worse than Toram, just
> that it takes more energy to go on offense than defense. If your
> opponent is going to the extra effort to be offensive, you let them
> (as long as you can afford to).
Especially if you think you can lull your opponent into underestimating
you. Rand, I suspect, has more patience and a better head for this
sort of thing than Toram, so I can see him doing that.
> However, I'm not sure Rand actually was being forced back. Thinking
> about it, Rand was trying to influence Toram with Ta'veren-ness.
> Perhaps he felt that drawing out the fight (possibly even losing,
> after a while!) would make a favorable impression. And it
> seems to have worked, a bit - Toram is quite upset when he realizes
> that Rand is the Dragon Reborn, 'tricking' him.
Rand should've realized that, with Fain's influence, Toram was
beyond his positive influences as a ta'veren. He was a lost cause.
> Either way, I don't think Rand intended for the fight to end the way
> it did. He just had different standards for when the fight should
> end than Toram did.
True. I think he wanted to win. He probably enjoys fighting with
the sword, and demonstrating to the rest of the rebels that he was
better than their resident blademaster could only do him good.
--
Eric McCoy (emc...@hamilton.edu)
"rash, n. Insensible to the value of our advice."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
[1] Or whatever the hell her name is.
James Andrew Bohall
> That depends on how you use the pole-arm. I CAN use a Bo-Staff so it is
> fast. Any attack from a sword you block in the perpendicular direction and
> then use the other end (Oh wow, does a Bo have two ends? It's a miracle!)
> to counter attack. So if the attack was a jab you block side to side. If
> the attack was left to right you block top to bottom. The counter can be
> many things but bare in mind that the sword cannot really block because it's
> still trying to attack you, even thought you have already blocked it!!
I should define pole-arm as I was thinking of it. Typical length is 7 to
16 feet (excluding pikes which can be as much as twice as long depending
on intended use) with a large blade, or blades, on the end. A true
pole-arm is more like a a very long axe with a stabbing spear point as
well. A staff weapons lacks the blade/spike, and a spear would be a
compromise between the two. As I said, a polearm is slow, while a staff
would be incredibly fast.
Thoth
Sorry! I was getting over excited again. I just gotta calm down.
Thoth
'Let us be thankful for the fools.
But for them the rest of us could not succeed.' - Mark Twain
Hrun the Barbarian
What every one seems to be missing here is that the swords used in tWoT is
not the european type sword such as broadswords or claymores (well except
for Uno & co.) but oriental swords soch as katanas and the likes, wich is
why the fighting "looks" the way it does, with swordforms and stuff...
just a bit of guidance to steer the depate back into course...
//CreatoR
-- Yes it is I...
Rand99999
>"Spear" in the Old Tongue is siswai. This is derived from "siswai'aman",
>the Spears of the Dragon, and "algai'd'siswai", the fighting spears.
Spear is also darei, as in 'Maidens of the Spear', or Far Dareis Mai. Jordan
said something about the two words (the OT has synonyms just like English) in
one of his interviews. They are at this site:
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kor2/WOT/WOTindex/interview.html
At least, I think they are. I didn't have time to check, but that's the only
site I've got with interviews.
--------
Ryan R.
"He Who Just Missed Coming With the Dawn"
Scott Carlson
Actually, I believe I've heard Mat's particular weapon described
as a glaive. I do know, however that Jordan, in his
descriptions, makes it out to be more like Thoth's 'pike' than
anything else, i.e. a slightly curved, single-edged blade (I'd
imagine maybe like 9-12 inches long, like a large kitchen knife
or something) mounted on a maybe 6 foot staff. A pike tends to
be much longer than that (about 12-15 feet in length) and does
not necessarily have the blade, but rather just a point (I
think). And a spear would be a short pike. Now, the Aiel seem
to use a short 'spear' (3 or 4 feet long), but it seems to have
a double-edged spearhead mounted on it. This makes it either
like a close-in staff (with slashing added, but we'll ignore
that) in fighting style, with two operative ends, or more like a
sword, but with less blade... I'm not sure which.
Scott Carlson
GholamSlayer
>prove, that he possesses the skill of a Blademaster, and therefore,
>he would now be outskilled by Galad, Gawyn and Rand, who are proven
>Blademasters, IMO.
But recall what the Warder says after they get whipped. "Who was the
greatest Blademaster of all time?" I forget the name but he goes on to say
that he fought and won 10000 battles, and his only defeat, came at the hands
of a farmer with a quarterstaff.
-GS
Tim Lee
attrbuted to ancient China.
Ron Charlotte wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:23:24 +0100, "Thoth" <bad...@easynet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't remember the specifics but the Aiel are dedicated so battles with
> >them are always tough. It a bit like the assassination theory that says if
> >an assassin is willing to give up everything to make the kill there is know
> >way to stop him (I'm paraphrasing here). Mat's 'funny spear thing', is it a
> >halberd (a long stick with a perpendicular point, like a small axe blade on
> >the end) or a pike (a long stick with a single bladed dagger type thing at
> >the end) or just a spear (a long stick with a point on the end)? Either way
> >the weapon could be used like a staff but it would have the added advantage
> >of whatever was on the end!
>
> From the description, it's a lot like the japanese naginata, which is
> basically a short sword on a stick.
>
Kevin Winchester
GholamSlayer wrote in message <6qd22d$7...@world1.bellatlantic.net>...
Jearom was the greatest baldemaster of all time, just for anyone curious,
and yes, a quarterstaff, not being a blade, probably doesn't qualify Mat to
be a BLADEmaster, but Mat is quite good. He could probably beat just about
anyone with that quarterstaff(proof, how good is Galad, and with Gawyn, and
Mat still beat them, without his newfound battle knowledge). This is yet
another example of Two Rivers folk being better than anyone else at
something without even realizing it(other examples: Tabac makes the news in
Tear, Perrin qualifies as a blacksmith in Illian when he didn't yet qualify
with Master Luhhan, Mat's judging of horses as well). This is supposed to
be from Manetheren, so it is believable. But in direct response to your
statement, A quarterstaff is apparently an easier weapon to win with than a
sword.
Kevin Winchester
Markus Rasch
You forgot the attribution. I have re-inserted it.
GholamSlayer <cma...@mercury.balink.com> wrote:
>
> Markus Rasch wrote:
>
> >After this incident, there is, IMO, no performance of Mat, which would
> >prove, that he possesses the skill of a Blademaster, and therefore,
> >he would now be outskilled by Galad, Gawyn and Rand, who are proven
> >Blademasters, IMO.
>
> But recall what the Warder says after they get whipped. "Who was the
> greatest Blademaster of all time?" I forget the name but he goes on to say
> that he fought and won 10000 battles, and his only defeat, came at the hands
> of a farmer with a quarterstaff.
Yes, I remember that. The name of the Blademaster is Jearom.
But how does this prove, that _Mat_ outskills a Blademaster?
This nice little story shows us only two things:
1. A quarterstaff is a useful weapon.
2. Even the greatest fighter can be bested,
if he underestimates his opponent.
MR
BLAFFEY
strange Tam's sword was, being single edged and curved. It is possible
that most swords, those used by reular swords are the double-edged and
straight but it is possible that some blademasters and warders may prefer
using one similar to Tam's.
BTW.. not trying to start a flame war but I use pine to reply to news
groups and it sticks the text on top of the replied message so please do
not jump on me for not placing this text after the quoted message. Is
there is a way to shift it around please let me know.
Brian
Antonio Ramirez
Yeah, I use pine too. I just scroll to the bottem of the text, then start
typing. This, Of course, really sucks with a very long message.
Jeremy Kent
>
> On 7 Aug 1998, BLAFFEY wrote:
> > BTW.. not trying to start a flame war but I use pine to reply to news
> Yeah, I use pine too. I just scroll to the bottem of the text, then start
Could one of you email me and tell how pine can read newsgroups? I'd be
greatly interested to know. Thanks.
-Jeremy Kent
ken...@cocoon.ucr.edu
Alex Goddard
>
> Actually I think thaqt most swords in that world are. rand noted how
> strange Tam's sword was, being single edged and curved. It is possible
> that most swords, those used by reular swords are the double-edged and
> straight but it is possible that some blademasters and warders may prefer
> using one similar to Tam's.
At the time Rand first saw Tam's sword, he was stunned that his father
would ever own a thing like that. The mere sight of a sword in his
house was startling. Under these circumstances, any sword would be
strange. IIRC, the only swords we've seen that were straight, and
double edged were those used by the Shiernans. Even Be'lal's Saidin
wrought sword in tDR had a curved blade and heron. IIRC, Turak (the
Seanchan blademaster from tGH) had a curved blade.
> [Snip Apology for formating error]
> On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Hrun the Barbarian wrote:
>
> > <Lotsa snipping of things that has to do with swords and stuff>
> >
> > [Snip the statement that all swords in Randland are single edged, and curved, like a katana or some such thing]
Ugh, forgive this format error, the person I'm replying to has already
apologized. I didn't want to remove all hope of context, so I kept most
of the stuff he replied to.
Alex Goddard
Lord of the Morning Cup(s) of Coffee
Amy Gray
>not jump on me for not placing this text after the quoted message. Is
>there is a way to shift it around please let me know.
Yes--just _move_ your cursor down to the bottom of the screen (after
snipping all irrelevancies of course) and proceed to post.
Thoth
Hrun the Barbarian wrote:
><Lotsa snipping of things that has to do with swords and stuff>
>
>not the european type sword such as broadswords or claymores (well except
>for Uno & co.) but oriental swords soch as katanas and the likes, wich is
>why the fighting "looks" the way it does, with swordforms and stuff...
I think we knew that, I certainly did, but the discussion just turned to how
would they fair against a fencer. Also the point has been made somewhere on
this thread, and I agree with it, that sword fighting and infact fighting in
general has many links, it is just the techniques that change!
Thoth
'When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second.
When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's
relativity.'
- Albert Einstein
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
> Could one of you email me and tell how pine can read newsgroups? I'd be
> greatly interested to know. Thanks.
Believe me: You don't want to know. Pine is an okayish mail reader,
but its news reader abilities sucks as bad as TIN.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Courtenay Footman
>On 7 Aug 1998, BLAFFEY wrote:
>>
>Yeah, I use pine too. I just scroll to the bottem of the text, then start
>
To command pine to use whatever editor you use normally (vi, vim, emacs,
whatever (ed?!?)), go to the pine setup menu, set enable-alternate-editor-
implicitly, then page down several more screens, to the line which says
"editor", type the A(dd value) command, and enter the name of your editor.
While you are at it, you probably want to set the "signature-at-bottom"
flag.
(Pine is a perfectly reasonable mailer[1], once one has it tamed. Its
defaults, however, seem to have been written by the BOFH to torment people.)
[1] Nothing[2], however, can make it a decent newsreader.
[2] Well, short of "alias pine slrn", or some such.
--
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
(All mail from non-valid addresses is automatically deleted by my system.)
Binh Vo
Markus Rasch wrote:
> James Andrew Bohall <boh...@students.uiuc.edu> wrotein article
> <Pine.SOL.3.96.980801...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> >
> > On 1 Aug 1998, Markus Rasch wrote:
> >
> > > Mat's actual experiences are less than Lan's, Rhuarc's
> > > or even Rand's (Rand trains a lot).
> >
> > There is Mat POV (I don't remeber where tho) that essentially states that
> > Mat no longer can tell where his borrowed memories begin or end. In other
> > words, Mat has the experience of all these people from long ago. In his
> > mind, they are the memories of someone else. It is his own actions he
> > remembers. (Like remembering that he danced with a Sea folk, not someone
> > he else he remembers dancing with a sea folk). It's like he lived as many
> > people. His own experience would then be much greater than Lan or Rhuarc.
>
> IIRC, Mat has the memories of hundreds of people, but often, these memories
> consist only of a very short time. Therefore, he didn't live the whole life of
> these people, but only short periods.
>
> It should also be pointed out, that the persons whose memories he possesses
> aren't necessarily all weapon masters. All we know for sure is, that they were
> generals, advisors, componists or mere soldiers.
>
> The experience of average fighters might be less usual, than Lan's or Rhuarc's.
>
> It seems also probable, that the main part of his memories, in which he
> fights in a battle or duel, consists of sword-fights, rather than his actual
> weapon.
>
> We certainly haven't seen a sudden increase of Mat's skill, which would prove,
> that his memories balance the skill of a _Blademaster_, IMO.
>
> My point is, that his memories are certainly useful, but doesn't qualify him
> to achieve the skill of someone like Lan, Rhuarc or even Rand.
>
> > > And mere knowledge, won't be enough against an opponent,
> > > whose skill is greater than Mat's, IMO.
> > > (You can't win against a fencing master only by reading about fencing)
> >
> > Mat didn't read about fencing. He lived as a fencing master. He lived as
> > many fencing masters.
>
> Well, the reading part is, of course, inapprobiate in Mat's case.
> I only wanted to make my point clear, that knowlege doesn't serve you
> too well, if your opponent is faster than you.
>
> The original point was, that _mainly_ strategy, which consists of
> experiences and knowledge, makes a good swordsman.
>
> This point was apparently claimed by Miyamoto Musashi in
> "A Book of Five Rings".
> [actual "-AW" claimed this position as Musashi's in this thread]
>
> I tried to apply his claim to Mat's case, by putting Mat's qualities in
> the categories experience and knowledge.
>
> The question is, if Mat's memories should be attributed to knowledge
> or experience. I attributed it to knowledge, because Mat doesn't profit
> from it like an other person, who _actually_ experiences a fight, because
> Mat can't improve his speed, strenght, balance or concentration through
> them.
>
> Perhaps, they also could be attributed to experience.
>
> But even then, it is questionable, IMO, if his memories hold the same
> value as Lan's or Rhuarc's, as I pointed out above.
>
> So, in conclusion, I don't think, that Mat possesses a greater strategic
> ability in a duel (note, not a battle) than a Blademaster.
>
> Please note, that I am merely speaking about strategy, and not skill.
>
> I _myself_, find Musashi's claim (or rather "-AW's") very questionable,
> because I believe, that he undervalues other abilities, like speed,
> strenght and balance.
>
Well we know that he gains more or less full experience from his memories (recall
his dancing in Ebou Dar?), and that nearly all his memories come from battles(many
of which involve him charging in the forefront of his army for some reason), and
that experienced fighters, even if slow, can be deadly(recall slow but knowledgable
swordsman that got Rand in that 5on1 training session?admittedly not supreme, but
still very good), and that his memories come from many many many battle leaders so
it doesn't matter if some of them aren't veterans. Also note that while we don't
get to see Mat practice a lot, he's been in more battle situations than we've
seen(the Band skirmishing everywhere they go), and he beat Couladin, who is by all
indications among the best of the Aiel, and even in the Two Rivers he engaged in
staff competitions and was only bettered by Tam and his dad.
--
This is your brain.
This is your brain on rasfwrj.
Any questions?
Markus Rasch
It isn't necessary to quote the entire post to which you reply.
Please snip the irrelevant parts and summarize the rest,
and put your comments below the specific point you are
addressing. It would make it easier for everybody to read
and understand your posts faster.
Binh Vo <b...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> Markus Rasch wrote:
[ snip Mat's strategic abilities in a duel and his lack of skill to
match a Blademaster]
> Well we know that he gains more or less full experience from his
> memories (recall his dancing in Ebou Dar?), and that nearly all
> his memories come from battles(many of which involve him
> charging in the forefront of his army for some reason),
_From_ battles doesn't necessarily mean from the fighting in the
battles. Mat doesn't need to experience the _fights_ to judge the
strategical and tactical situation.
> and that experienced fighters, even if slow, can be deadly(recall
> slow but knowledgable swordsman that got Rand in that 5on1
> training session?admittedly not supreme, but still very good),
Of course, a rather slow man _can_ be dangerous (Mat isn't slow
by the way), but I'm doubting, whether Mat is skilled enough to
be among the best of the best. Whether he possesses the same
skill as men like Lan, Rhuarc, Sammael or Rand.
Because of that, it _does_ matter if Mat trains his physical
abilities like speed or strength or his balance. The level of
skill we discuss needs permanent training, IMO.
> and that his memories come from many many many battle
> leaders so it doesn't matter if some of them aren't veterans.
But the quality of his memories is also important.
The memories of mere veterans may not be good enough
to equal the experiences of a Blademaster.
Mat's battle memories for instance aren't of foot soldiers, but of
generals and advisors. People who understand the military
situation. The memories of mere soldiers wouldn't be enough to
make Mat the genius he is, because they would lack a certain
understanding of the situation.
The same could be applied to his memories which contain
actual fighting. A veteran like Uno is no Blademaster.
> Also note that while we don't get to see Mat practice a lot,
> he's been in more battle situations than we've seen(the Band
> skirmishing everywhere they go),
Lan and Rhuarc were constantly instructed since they were old
enough to hold a weapon by highly qualified men. They have
more than 30 years of experience on a very high level.
Rand practices on a regularly basis and has constantly improved
his skill for two years.
Mat, OTOH, doesn't train at all.
Battle experiences are good for battles, but lack the quality of
personal training a Blademaster has. A battle experienced
soldier might survive a battle rather than a duelist, but he would
loose in a duel, without special training and Mat _doesn't_ train.
A good example is Uno, who is undoubtedly very experienced,
but wouldn't have had a chance against Galad in tFoH.
Please note, that I am not saying Mat is on par with
Uno, because he undoubtedly outskills Uno.
I'm merely valuing the worth of Mat's experiences in
comparison to the kind of education a Blademaster had.
> and he beat Couladin, who is by all indications among
> the best of the Aiel,
We know nothing about Couladin's skill aside that he is an
Aiel, and therefore very good. Was it his skill or his ambition,
which made him the leader of the Shaido?
Couladin didn't need to be the best fighter of the Shaido to
reach his position and even if he was it doesn't mean,
that he had Rhuarc's or Rand's skill.
Couladin was surely good. The fact that Mat bested him (with
luck and in the middle of a battle and not a duel) qualifies him
as a very good fighter, but it doesn't qualify him to match a
Blademaster.
> and even in the Two Rivers he engage in staff competitions and
> was only bettered by Tam and his dad.
He only claimed, that Abbell always won the staff competition,
except when Tam won, IIRC.
All the points, which are brought up in favor of Mat's skill qualify
him as a very good fighter, who could possibly best everybody,
except a Blademaster or somebody with comparable abilities.
But they also fail to prove that Mat is more skilled than that.
The value of his memories can be judged either way, but the
main point is that Mat didn't best a Blademaster, he didn't
perform anything spectacular enough to believe he has the skill
of a Blademaster (see the valuation of Mat's fight against Galad
and Gawyn and against the Aiel assassins in the thread "Of
Swords and Time") and nobody has acknowledged his skill in
a way which would indicate he has the skill of one.
MR
Binh Vo
Markus Rasch wrote:
> It isn't necessary to quote the entire post to which you reply.
> Please snip the irrelevant parts and summarize the rest,
> and put your comments below the specific point you are
> addressing. It would make it easier for everybody to read
> and understand your posts faster.
>
> Binh Vo <b...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> > Markus Rasch wrote:
>
> [ snip Mat's strategic abilities in a duel and his lack of skill to
> match a Blademaster]
>
> > Well we know that he gains more or less full experience from his
> > memories (recall his dancing in Ebou Dar?), and that nearly all
> > his memories come from battles(many of which involve him
> > charging in the forefront of his army for some reason),
>
> _From_ battles doesn't necessarily mean from the fighting in the
> battles. Mat doesn't need to experience the _fights_ to judge the
> strategical and tactical situation.
>
He doesn't fight in all of them, but he distinctly remembers charging into
the forefront of several of them, I would he assume he remembers what
happened after he charged in too.
> > and that experienced fighters, even if slow, can be deadly(recall
> > slow but knowledgable swordsman that got Rand in that 5on1
> > training session?admittedly not supreme, but still very good),
>
> Of course, a rather slow man _can_ be dangerous (Mat isn't slow
> by the way), but I'm doubting, whether Mat is skilled enough to
> be among the best of the best. Whether he possesses the same
> skill as men like Lan, Rhuarc, Sammael or Rand.
>
> Because of that, it _does_ matter if Mat trains his physical
> abilities like speed or strength or his balance. The level of
> skill we discuss needs permanent training, IMO.
>
I'm not saying he's slow, I'm saying he may not need that much physical
training to be an excellent fighter. He has the experiences of several,
several generals, many of whom actually fought in the _front_ of their
armies, and we know that he does benefit from this experience because of
the dancing scene.
> > and that his memories come from many many many battle
> > leaders so it doesn't matter if some of them aren't veterans.
>
> But the quality of his memories is also important.
> The memories of mere veterans may not be good enough
> to equal the experiences of a Blademaster.
>
> Mat's battle memories for instance aren't of foot soldiers, but of
> generals and advisors. People who understand the military
> situation. The memories of mere soldiers wouldn't be enough to
> make Mat the genius he is, because they would lack a certain
> understanding of the situation.
>
> The same could be applied to his memories which contain
> actual fighting. A veteran like Uno is no Blademaster.
>
With the sheer number of people's memories crammed in his head, I'm sure he
has the experiences of at least one blademaster(or asharandei-master).
> > Also note that while we don't get to see Mat practice a lot,
> > he's been in more battle situations than we've seen(the Band
> > skirmishing everywhere they go),
>
> Lan and Rhuarc were constantly instructed since they were old
> enough to hold a weapon by highly qualified men. They have
> more than 30 years of experience on a very high level.
> Rand practices on a regularly basis and has constantly improved
> his skill for two years.
>
> Mat, OTOH, doesn't train at all.
>
He did train with the staff as a boy, to the extent where he could beat
Galad and Gawyn together, while frail and weak, who had been able to manage
2of5 and 3of5 with their teacher, who was a blademaster.
> Battle experiences are good for battles, but lack the quality of
> personal training a Blademaster has. A battle experienced
> soldier might survive a battle rather than a duelist, but he would
> loose in a duel, without special training and Mat _doesn't_ train.
>
> A good example is Uno, who is undoubtedly very experienced,
> but wouldn't have had a chance against Galad in tFoH.
>
> Please note, that I am not saying Mat is on par with
> Uno, because he undoubtedly outskills Uno.
> I'm merely valuing the worth of Mat's experiences in
> comparison to the kind of education a Blademaster had.
>
> > and he beat Couladin, who is by all indications among
> > the best of the Aiel,
>
> We know nothing about Couladin's skill aside that he is an
> Aiel, and therefore very good. Was it his skill or his ambition,
> which made him the leader of the Shaido?
>
What we do know is that average Aiel can take on 50% more troops and make
it an even battle(i can't remember where the quote for this is, can anyone
else find it?), but Couladin was slaying pikemen left and right, and
managed to break through their line almost single-handedly. And we know
that Melindrha considered killing him a great honor, despite the aiel
normally saying any fool can kill or die.
> Couladin didn't need to be the best fighter of the Shaido to
> reach his position and even if he was it doesn't mean,
> that he had Rhuarc's or Rand's skill.
>
Lan seriously doubted Rand's ability to take on Couladin, and shortly after
this his training slowed down and stopped, so he still is maybe an even
match to Couladin, or maybe a little better now. Mat beat him one on one,
there were was no mentioning of any others helping or any horses bumping
into him or anything, otherwise Mat would have said something about his
luck, because that's just the way the Mat passages are written.
> Couladin was surely good. The fact that Mat bested him (with
> luck and in the middle of a battle and not a duel) qualifies him
> as a very good fighter, but it doesn't qualify him to match a
> Blademaster.
>
> > and even in the Two Rivers he engage in staff competitions and
> > was only bettered by Tam and his dad.
>
> He only claimed, that Abbell always won the staff competition,
> except when Tam won, IIRC.
That's a good point.
> The value of his memories can be judged either way, but the
> main point is that Mat didn't best a Blademaster, he didn't
> perform anything spectacular enough to believe he has the skill
> of a Blademaster (see the valuation of Mat's fight against Galad
> and Gawyn and against the Aiel assassins in the thread "Of
> Swords and Time") and nobody has acknowledged his skill in
> a way which would indicate he has the skill of one.
>
He beat Couladin, who Lan says probably could have beat Rand, who thought
he was at Blademaster level at the time. Even Lan said Rand was 'nearly
there', so even if he wasn't quite a blademaster, Lan probably considered
Couladin on par with one.
--
Prince of a popular dishwashing detergent.
Lord of dead people's relatives at a funeral.
The Chinese Puppet Reborn.
Sean Leventhal
Binh Vo wrote in message
>Lan seriously doubted Rand's ability to take on Couladin, and shortly after
>this his training slowed down and stopped, so he still is maybe an even
>match to Couladin, or maybe a little better now. Mat beat him one on one,
>there were was no mentioning of any others helping or any horses bumping
>into him or anything, otherwise Mat would have said something about his
>luck, because that's just the way the Mat passages are written.
No, Lan thought that it was foolish for the Dragon Reborn to rush into
battle and risk getting killed by anything, say a stray spear, when he could
do more damage from behind the lines.
Sean
Markus Rasch
Your line lengths are too long. Please use 72-75 characters.
Binh Vo <b...@writeme.com> wrote:
> Markus Rasch wrote:
[snip]
> > Binh Vo <b...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > and that experienced fighters, even if slow, can be deadly(recall
> > > slow but knowledgable swordsman that got Rand in that 5on1
> > > training session?admittedly not supreme, but still very good),
> >
> > Of course, a rather slow man _can_ be dangerous (Mat isn't slow
> > by the way), but I'm doubting, whether Mat is skilled enough to
> > be among the best of the best. Whether he possesses the same
> > skill as men like Lan, Rhuarc, Sammael or Rand.
> >
> > Because of that, it _does_ matter if Mat trains his physical
> > abilities like speed or strength or his balance. The level of
> > skill we discuss needs permanent training, IMO.
>
> I'm not saying he's slow, I'm saying he may not need that much
> physical training to be an excellent fighter. He has the
> experiences of several, several generals, many of whom actually
> fought in the _front_ of their armies, and we know that he does
> benefit from this experience because of the dancing scene.
Mat is an excellent fighter. I wouldn't argue that.
But I disagree, if you claim Mat's memories could sustitute Rand's
training. Memories may substitute experience to some amount,
but they can't improve your speed and strenght.
Why was Be'lal the better swordsman than Rand?
He was stonger and faster. Read the scene.
One reason why Rand is practicing, is to improve these abilities.
How could memories substitute speed? Or strength?
[snip discussion about Mat's memories, where we disagree]
> > > Also note that while we don't get to see Mat practice a lot,
> > > he's been in more battle situations than we've seen(the Band
> > > skirmishing everywhere they go),
> >
> > Lan and Rhuarc were constantly instructed since they were old
> > enough to hold a weapon by highly qualified men. They have
> > more than 30 years of experience on a very high level.
> > Rand practices on a regularly basis and has constantly improved
> > his skill for two years.
> >
> > Mat, OTOH, doesn't train at all.
>
> He did train with the staff as a boy, to the extent where he could
> beat Galad and Gawyn together, while frail and weak, who had
> been able to manage 2of5 and 3of5 with their teacher, who was
> a blademaster.
If your observation would be correct, I would agree to you.
But unfortunately it isn't.
At the time of their fight, neither Gawyn nor Galad were
nearly as good as now.
Mat's observation in <tDR; ?, Scouting and Discoveries, 226>
proves this:
" The tall man [Galad] handled his practice sword _almost_ as
deftly as the Warders, ..." [insert and emphasis mine]
Mat could still differentiate between the skill of Galad, the best
student, and the Warders. Therefore, both Gawyn and Galad
were clearly inferior to a Blademaster like Hammar, who was
probably the most skilled Warder in the tower aside from Coulin.
Please note, that they didn't even have the skill of a mere
Warder, at this point of the story.
Furthermore, I also don't believe, that Mat would have been
able to defeat them, if they had taken him serious, from the
beginning.
Gawyn for instance was knocked out before he did anything.
Galad and Mat were close, with Mat the better one.
His state of skill at this point was comparable to Darlin Sisnera
(see his fight in the Stone against him), of whom we know,
that he isn't a Blademaster.
The skill you claim for Gawyn and Galad was only reached later,
due to permanent training under the instruction of the Warders.
Gambling, drinking and flirting may also be called training,
but surely of a different sort.
[snip]
> > > and he beat Couladin, who is by all indications among
> > > the best of the Aiel,
> >
> > We know nothing about Couladin's skill aside that he is an
> > Aiel, and therefore very good. Was it his skill or his ambition,
> > which made him the leader of the Shaido?
>
> What we do know is that average Aiel can take on 50% more
> troops and make it an even battle(i can't remember where the
> quote for this is, can anyone else find it?),
Well, that depends on the opponents.
The Tairens and Cairhienins were able to outmatch the Shaido
in Cairhien, due to Mat's tactics and a Borderland army is
surley nearly equal to the Aiel.
Nobody says the Aiel aren't good fighters, but your
argument doesn't indicate, that Couladin could best
a Blademaster.
> but Couladin was slaying pikemen left and right, and
> managed to break through their line almost single-handedly.
You realize, that you exxagerate a bit.
Couladin was crazy. This doesn't speak for his superior
abilities, because emotions distract.
Can you see Lan or Rhuarc scream around the way Couladin
did? Couladin lacked discipline, which indicates that he
wasn't a superior fighter, at least not superior enough to
be counted among men who possess the skill of a Blademaster.
> And we know that Melindrha considered killing him a great
> honor, despite the aiel normally saying any fool can kill or die.
Couladin was her clan chief and her mission was to be as close
as possible to Mat.
> > Couladin didn't need to be the best fighter of the Shaido to
> > reach his position and even if he was it doesn't mean,
> > that he had Rhuarc's or Rand's skill.
>
> Lan seriously doubted Rand's ability to take on Couladin,
You should consider to re-read these scenes, before backing
your points up with them.
Lan didn't "seriously doubt" Rand's ability to best Couladin.
He didn't value Couladin's abilities at all, aside from his warning,
that _Aielmen_ are good fighters. If Lan would have believed, that
Couladin is somewhat special, he surely would have mentioned it.
Lan's warnings should merely keep off Rand from risking his life
in a battle situation, because his life is too precious to risk
only for his personal revenge. Everybody can get killed in the
hot of a battle, despite his personal abilities.
> and shortly after this his training slowed down and stopped,
Well, then I must have read an other version of LoC than you.
> so he still is maybe an even match to Couladin, or maybe a little
> better now. Mat beat him one on one, there were was no
> mentioning of any others helping or any horses bumping into him
> or anything, otherwise Mat would have said something about his
> luck, because that's just the way the Mat passages are written.
If Couladin wasn't up to Rhuarc's level, this scene indicates,
exactly what I'm saying. Mat can best nearly everybody, except
the rare individuals, who possess the skill of a Blademaster.
And you should also note, that Mat _had_ luck.
One inch away from his heart is very close.
[snip]
> > The value of his memories can be judged either way, but the
> > main point is that Mat didn't best a Blademaster, he didn't
> > perform anything spectacular enough to believe he has the skill
> > of a Blademaster (see the valuation of Mat's fight against Galad
> > and Gawyn and against the Aiel assassins in the thread "Of
> > Swords and Time") and nobody has acknowledged his skill in
> > a way which would indicate he has the skill of one.
>
> He beat Couladin, who Lan says probably could have beat Rand,
> who thought he was at Blademaster level at the time. Even Lan
> said Rand was 'nearly there', so even if he wasn't quite a
> blademaster, Lan probably considered Couladin on par with one.
If Lan would have said such a thing, you would be correct.
But he didn't. Read the scene.
MR
tell...@hotmail.com
<mark...@metronet.de.SPAMSHIELD> wrote:
<snip lots of argument over Mats skill level>
>His state of skill at this point was comparable to Darlin Sisnera
>(see his fight in the Stone against him), of whom we know,
>that he isn't a Blademaster.
Well this scene doesn't necessarily show how much skill Mat normally
has. They were in a narrow corridor in which Mat barely had enough
room to swing his Quarterstaff. If you have ever trained with either
Quarterstaff or sword you will realize that in a confined area the
swordsman has a distinct advantage.
On a somewhat side note, I the entire argument of whether memories
would increase Mats skill in battle, reminds me of Terry Goodkinds The
Stone of Tears. In this book the main character bears the sword of
Truth which contains within it all the fighting knowledge of everyone
who has wielded it before. He is able to tap this knowledge so when
he is fighting it is like he has had hundreds of years of experiance
and he is easily able to parry and counter attack because he has seen
it all before no move his opponent makes would suprise him. Now I
doubt Goodking is an expert on swordsmanship but as a swordsman myself
(I have 2 years experiance in ken-jutsu and iai-jutsu) I know that
concentration and conditioning are important, but if someone has what
amounts to hundreds of years of training behind them, I would be VERY
wary of that opponent even if they didn't train regularly now.
Markus Rasch
tell...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On 14 Aug 1998 19:44:24 GMT, "Markus Rasch"
> <mark...@metronet.de.SPAMSHIELD> wrote:
>
> <snip lots of argument over Mats skill level>
>
> >His state of skill at this point was comparable to Darlin Sisnera
> >(see his fight in the Stone against him), of whom we know,
> >that he isn't a Blademaster.
>
> Well this scene doesn't necessarily show how much skill Mat normally
> has. They were in a narrow corridor in which Mat barely had enough
> room to swing his Quarterstaff.
But he had enough room for some nice attacks and he didn't
mention, that he was restricted. There was only not enough
room for Juilin and Mat both using their staffs.
Juilin even indicated, that Mat had enough room.
> If you have ever trained with either Quarterstaff or sword you will
> realize that in a confined area the swordsman has a distinct
> advantage.
Well, your observation is certainly correct, but Mat wasn't
confined enough, that he couldn't use his staff still very
effective (He was able to whirl his staff above his head).
> On a somewhat side note, I the entire argument of whether memories
> would increase Mats skill in battle, reminds me of Terry Goodkinds The
> Stone of Tears. In this book the main character bears the sword of
> Truth which contains within it all the fighting knowledge of everyone
> who has wielded it before. He is able to tap this knowledge so when
> he is fighting it is like he has had hundreds of years of experiance
> and he is easily able to parry and counter attack because he has seen
> it all before no move his opponent makes would suprise him.
Well, IIRC, some kind of magic takes control of Richard's body.
And please, we are speaking about a book, where a single man
is able to kill 30! men, who were themselves the deadliest fighters
possible, at once! And they can't even wound him.
Goodkind doesn't especially care about logic in his series.
He probably uses every single idea which comes to his mind,
without thinking about the plausibility of it.
> Now I doubt Goodking is an expert on swordsmanship but as
> a swordsman myself (I have 2 years experiance in ken-jutsu
> and iai-jutsu) I know that concentration and conditioning are
> important, but if someone has what amounts to hundreds of
> years of training behind them, I would be VERY
> wary of that opponent even if they didn't train regularly now.
Mat doesn't have hundreds of years training, he doesn't have
hundred's of years experience, he doesn't even have hundreds
of years memories from actual fighting.
You should also note, that we can assume, that Mat's memories
consist mainly of sword fighting and not staff fighting.
And I'm slowly tiring a little bit, because all the arguments in
Mat's favor are very nice, but constantly fail to prove his ability
to match a Blademaster. Mat is an extraordinary good fighter,
but there are some people, who are even more skilled than he.
MR
E. Ulirsch
> -AW <do...@spam.me> wrote in article <35C25E...@spam.me>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Seriously though, my point, had I been lucent enough to make it,
> > was that experience and memory have huge areas of overlap, and that
> > the main part of being a good swordsman is _strategy_, which is
> > emphasized in the book. Strategy comes from a combination of
> > experience and knowledge (memories, in this case). Mat has
> > gained experience in using his spear in his present lifetime, and
> > has memories (I think... I could be wrong, it's happened before)
> > of using a similar weapon in previous lifetimes (mostly Manetheren
> > lives, I believe).
>
> Your point has certainly some value.
>
> In a fight between two adversaries with similar physical abilities
> (speed, strenght and balance) and a comparable mental control,
> the more experienced and knowledgeable one would certainly win.
>
> The question is now, how important are Mat's strategical abilities in
> a duel, in comparison to mere technical skill and concentration.
>
> Mat's actual experiences are less than Lan's, Rhuarc's
> or even Rand's (Rand trains a lot).
>
> And mere knowledge, won't be enough against an opponent,
> whose skill is greater than Mat's, IMO.
> (You can't win against a fencing master only by reading about fencing)
>
> I don't argue, that Mat possesses the potential to improve
> his skill, even to the level of a Blademaster.
> But the only way to achieve this level of skill, is to _train_
> his speed, strenght, balance and concentration.
>
> The way everybody else does it.
>
>
Did you forget what Mat did with Gawyn and Galad in Tar Valon when he
was half sick??
Cluracarn